This article is part of the Under the Lens series
Fit to Live In: Fixing Our Housing Stock
Editor’s note: The author works at the Center for Community Progress, a nonprofit that collaborates with cities and policymakers to handle vacancy and abandonment. CCP has partnered with or worked for all the cities included as examples in this piece (Peoria, Illinois; Rochester, New York; and Louisville, Kentucky.)
In the late 2000s, I was an attorney for the city of Chicago. I spent some of my time prosecuting exterior code violations, like accumulations of junk and debris or high weeds. That was how I found myself at a city hearing site on the far South Side. Many of the properties on the hearing docket were located in predominantly Black neighborhoods that had endured decades of disinvestment and higher rates of vacancy and abandonment than other neighborhoods in Chicago.
Before his hearing, I spoke with an elderly gentleman who was perhaps a little embarrassed by how the conditions on his property had gotten slightly out of hand. But he was also frustrated: how would he pay an $850 fine and address the violations on a fixed income?
I, a young white lawyer who had rarely visited his neighborhood, told him what the ordinance required and that the fine was due. But (at least as my understanding of the law and my role at that time allowed) I could offer little flexibility, no resources, and no real help to achieve compliance. Many inspectors—in Chicago and elsewhere—do try to speak with owners before issuing violations, though this gentleman said he received no such outreach.
[RELATED ARTICLE: Squatters Ask Chicago: Why So Many Vacancies?]
That conversation stuck with me. This homeowner showed up hoping to work with someone who could help him address the problem. Instead, he met with a system quick with penalties and short on guidance, resources, or solutions. Code enforcement professionals themselves have expressed frustration over the pressure to get properties into compliance with few tools or supports to help residents address the barriers to comply.
For that homeowner on the South Side, whether the fine was $850 or $85,000 made no difference. He couldn’t pay it. At a certain point, he remarked that it might be easier just to walk away.
In the years since, I’ve worked with local governments and code enforcement departments across the country. I’ve gained hope, and proof, that the limitations to code enforcement can be overcome.
What Is Code Enforcement?
State law allows—and in many cases, requires—local governments to enact property construction or maintenance standards, and enforce violations on properties including vacant homes, overgrown lots, rental properties, commercial buildings, and more. Though the tools vary, this is “code enforcement” at the most basic level. When done right, code enforcement can be one of the most effective tools local governments have to help make the places we live and work safer and healthier.
But how should “effectiveness” be measured? Certainly not by the amount of fees collected or citations issued. Instead, compliance is the goal, i.e., whether a violation is corrected. And, ultimately, the choice to comply (or not) with local housing or property maintenance codes is based primarily on whether the economics of the required repairs make sense.
Some residents simply can’t afford to comply. But for most, if the repairs cost more than the property is worth—which is common in many neighborhoods with high vacancy and weak real estate markets—then the owner may well choose not to invest in the repair.
There is, of course, a point at which an owner’s choice to not repair code violations poses danger to residents and neighbors. The decision to not fix a water heater, abate lead paint, or address mold in a home or rental unit obviously and directly affects the health and safety of those who live there. The decision to not repair or maintain vacant buildings and lots, on the other hand, seriously affects the health and welfare of all residents in the neighborhood.
We expect code enforcement teams to assess problems, counsel and advise owners, offer support and patience when possible, and act quickly to address dangerous situations. They cannot do this without resources, training, and support—which limited local government budgets rarely provide. Understanding the limitations of many of the more traditional tactics or tools may help explain why cities should rethink their approach.
What’s Wrong With Traditional Code Enforcement?
- Traditional code enforcement approaches or policies often rely almost exclusively on complaints to identify violations, which can cause unintended harm. This may of course be because of limited staff capacity. But if a local government only reacts to complaints—as opposed to adopting more proactive measures to address or prevent problems before they cause more harm—it may steer limited resources away from the properties causing the most harm to neighbors and neighborhoods. It can also put more vulnerable populations, like lower-income tenants, in the position of having to monitor and report health and safety concerns. Many are hesitant to do so for fear of retaliatory evictions.
- Complaint-driven inspection and enforcement cannot lead to neighborhood stabilization. On its own, traditional code enforcement can only ever address one parcel at a time—the symptoms of historic disinvestment and dysfunctional systems. But in neighborhoods with many vacant and deteriorated properties, economics is the fundamental underlying challenge.
- For many properties, the threat of civil and criminal penalties is ineffective or can make the situation worse. Threatening civil and criminal penalties against all properties and owners ignores the fact that different owners have different incentives to bring their properties into compliance. A punitive approach that relies on fines or jail time could be viewed as the criminalization of poverty. This outcome will only exacerbate inequities and increase housing insecurity.
- Enforcement tools (like liens for unpaid fines or cleanup costs) are often ineffective. Without sufficient legal authority in state law to enforce a lien for unpaid code enforcement fines or costs (which could include foreclosing on vacant properties), savvy owners, including owners of limited liability companies (LLCs) can find ways to avoid efforts to collect. Many local homeowners like the man in the anecdote above are made to pay fines. But LLCs and out-of-state investors are incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to bring to court and hold accountable.
These challenges are especially acute in communities with many vacant properties, decades of disinvestment, and pockets of concentrated poverty. Code enforcement officers know this better than anybody.
For financially insecure households in these types of communities, fines drain funds they could put toward repairs. Aggressive prosecution can result in displacement and yet another vacant property sliding faster toward demolition. Problem landlords and speculative vacant land holders, particularly corporate owners, can often find ways to avoid the personal liability imposed by such tools.
Ultimately, traditional code enforcement can be useful in certain situations. But on its own it cannot return harmful, vacant properties to productive use in neighborhoods long-disadvantaged by disinvestment and with broken real estate markets. A complete reimagining of this enforcement system is long overdue. Fortunately, many cities are already incubating and leading with more equitable, effective approaches.
Examples of Strategic Code Enforcement
Code enforcement cannot solve poverty, weak real estate markets, or all the other underlying issues experienced by communities with many vacant properties. By understanding how these factors influence compliance, code enforcement departments can build more effective strategies that help residents comply, mitigate unintended harm, and strengthen neighborhoods in the process.
A strategic code enforcement approach includes:
- Engaging the community. Make it a core part of the department’s mission to do community outreach and educate residents about how code enforcement works and what’s expected of them.
- Offering support. Connect property owners who lack the resources to comply with available support.
- Making data-informed decisions. Enhance data collection and analysis to tailor enforcement strategies to where and in what circumstances they’ll have the most impact, rather than treating every situation the same.
- Working with partners. Coordinate with other public agencies, nonprofits, and local groups that share a mission of addressing vacant properties and stabilizing neighborhoods.
Here are three cities that have reimagined their approach to code enforcement:
Peoria, Illinois: A Deep Shift in Work Culture and Mission
Peoria has shifted its focus from “code enforcement” to “code encouragement,” prioritizing education and supporting residents. The city’s code enforcement officers are trained on both technical code knowledge and social service acumen to better educate and connect with residents. The code enforcement department offers educational materials and sessions, connects under-resourced property owners to funding for rehab and repair, sponsors cleanup days, engages patiently with community members, and partners with other city departments and local organizations to leverage community expertise (for example, in building trades and community organizing). City officials say this approach has led owners and neighborhoods to address problems more quickly and lean on the city as a resource, instead of an adversary. Learn more about their approach in this webinar with Peoria’s community development director, Joe Dulin.
Rochester, New York: Improving Childhood Health in Rental Properties
To address elevated blood lead levels (or EBLLs) in children, Rochester mandated in 2005 that all rental properties undergo lead inspections as part of the City’s “Certificate of Occupancy” program. The program significantly reduced lead exposure. It also built departmental capacity through monthly in-house training sessions, annual satisfaction surveys to gauge public sentiment and invite feedback, and a partnership with the local medical university to monitor outcomes and evaluate impact.
[RELATED ARTICLE: The Mission: End Childhood Lead Poisoning in Rochester]
The program’s success came from cross-sector collaboration. This included city and county agencies, foundations, the housing authority, anchor health and university institutions, nonprofits, and neighborhood leaders. According to the Housing Solutions Lab, “between 2000 and 2016, the rate of EBLLs among children in Monroe County decreased by 85 percent.”
Louisville, Kentucky: Investments to Minimize the Harms of Vacant Properties
Louisville has long struggled with widespread vacancy, which has disproportionately affected historically Black neighborhoods in the West End. However, the city has exemplified incremental reforms, pilot efforts, constant evaluation, and sustained progress. The city’s “Cut List” program identifies and certifies properties as “abandoned.” It then schedules them for regular mowings and clean-ups to minimize the harms to neighbors. This significant investment of public dollars into abatement allows the city to eventually foreclose on the abandoned properties and either sell the property to a responsible party or transfer it to the Louisville Land Bank. The land bank can then work with community partners on supporting local priorities like first-time homeownership or permanently affordable rental housing. The Cut List program is data-driven, collaborative, and patient. It shows how a neighborhood can be revitalized when code enforcement works alongside other interventions.
Over the years, I have learned that I could have done more to help that South Side Chicago homeowner. Lawyers and inspectors in Chicago and around the country work tirelessly to support residents like him every day. But their efforts can only go so far without meaningful systems change. City leaders must support proactive, strategic approaches with clearly defined tools that help residents comply and that minimize unintended harm. When cities have the right frameworks and resources, only then can they realize the ultimate goal of code enforcement: Compliance.
About the Author
Tags
Comments
2 thoughts on “From Fines to Fixes: Rethinking Code Enforcement”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
take a look at Rochester’s lead inspection 8 years after the study cited in this article. https://www.wxxinews.org/local-news/2025-11-10/more-monroe-county-children-are-being-tested-for-lead-exposure
Another issue is the fact that bringing a property into complete compliance with the current building code is often economically unfeasible. This results in improvements to health, safety, and comfort not being made at all. For example: the 2nd floor apartment is accessed by a totally non-compliant stair. Risers are 12 inches, treads are maybe 5 inches — it’s been like this since the building was built in 1895. The building owner can replace the stairs with new stairs with code compliant rise and run and tread width but the width is 1.75 inches too narrow.
The code officer’s answer is that the new stairs must comply in every dimension, which would mean that the only. answer is a completely new, exterior stair at a cost of $45K. The rent can’t justify that cost, the building owner can’t afford it, and the result is that the dangerous stairs remain. This is not improving anything. There has to be a way of making things safer without requiring financially unreasonable remedies.