Repair, Closing, and Demolition of Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Local Government
  4. Urban Redevelopment
  5. Repair, Closing, and Demolition of Dwellings Unfit for Human Habitation

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

Any municipality or county may, by ordinance, require the repair, closing, or demolition of dwellings or other structures intended for human habitation which are, as defined in the ordinance, unfit for human habitation or which may imperil the health, safety, or morals of the occupants thereof or of surrounding areas. Such ordinances may include the following:

  1. Definition of the construction, condition, facilities, ventilation, and other conditions which shall render such structures unfit for human habitation or a nuisance;
  2. Designation of a public official or officials with authority to enforce such ordinances and establishment of procedures therefor;
  3. Provision for the enforcement of such ordinances by the municipal court of the municipality, as defined in Code Section 41-2-5, which may include provision for the abatement thereof as nuisances, as provided in such Code section; and
  4. Provision for the posting of notices on dwellings and other structures intended for human habitation, indicating the actions taken by enforcement officials or the court with respect thereto, and the fixing of penalties for the defacing, destruction, or removal of such notices; provided, however, that no such notice shall be posted on any property then designated by proper governmental authority for acquisition by eminent domain.

(Ga. L. 1955, p. 354, § 18; Ga. L. 1960, p. 1052, § 1; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36.)

Cross references.

- Eminent domain, T. 22.

Condemnation procedure, T. 22, C. 2.

Law reviews.

- For article surveying developments in Georgia real property law from mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 219 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Ordinance unconstitutional if effect is to take property by denying right to rebuild.

- When the effect of an ordinance passed pursuant to this section and the application thereof is to take from a property owner the owner's property, not through eminent domain, but by denying the owner a right to rebuild under a zoning code and requiring the owner to demolish under a slum clearance code, the ordinance is unconstitutional, null, and void. Shaffer v. City of Atlanta, 223 Ga. 249, 154 S.E.2d 241 (1967).

Any ordinance which authorizes demolition of a structure within the city without compensation to the owner merely because the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure or any percentage thereof, without first allowing opportunity to repair (and, if necessary, providing for discovery of the criteria which must be met to bring the structure up to a minimum standard) is unconstitutional and void. Horne v. City of Cordele, 140 Ga. App. 127, 230 S.E.2d 333 (1976).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

C.J.S.

- 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, §§ 52, 53.

ALR.

- What constitutes "Blighted Area" within urban renewal and redevelopment statutes, 45 A.L.R.3d 1096.


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.