Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (2026)

Removal or razing of buildings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Cities of the first class, cities of the second class, and incorporated towns may order the removal or razing of, or remove or raze, buildings or houses that in the opinion of the city council or town council have become dilapidated, unsightly, unsafe, unsanitary, obnoxious, or detrimental to the public welfare and shall provide by ordinance the manner of removing and making these removals.

History. Acts 1907, No. 352, § 2, p. 842; C. & M. Dig., § 7755; Pope's Dig., § 10054; Acts 1979, No. 219, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 19-2803; Acts 2017, No. 303, § 1.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment inserted “or razing” in the section heading; substituted “Cities of the first class, cities of the second class, and incorporated towns may” for “Cities of the first and second class shall have the power to”, substituted “or remove or raze, buildings” for “or to remove or raze, any buildings”, inserted “city council or town”, and made stylistic changes.

Cross References. Enforcement of removal or razing orders, § 14-54-904.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Where preponderance of evidence was to effect that buildings in question were a fire, health, and structural hazard, decree ordering their destruction under city ordinance enacted under the authority of this section was proper and did not constitute a violation of owner's constitutional rights. Springfield v. City of Little Rock, 226 Ark. 462, 290 S.W.2d 620 (1956).

Authority.

The authority of a city of first class to regulate the removing of houses does not give the city the authority to establish a building line. City of Stuttgart v. Strait, 212 Ark. 126, 205 S.W.2d 35 (1947).

Summary judgment was properly awarded to a city on a property owner's petition for an injunction to prevent the city from razing the owner's house because the city had the authority under the statute to determine that the house was a nuisance; the city had the authority given by statute to raze buildings that were detrimental to the public welfare. Kearney v. City of Little Rock, 2009 Ark. App. 125, 302 S.W.3d 629 (2009).

Because the issues regarding a building located in an historic district went beyond the character of the building and into the safety of the public, the authority to determine the status of the building belonged to the city under this section and the city ordinance, and due process was achieved; the city declared the owner's building a public nuisance and blocked off the street and the perimeter of the building in part to prevent injury to the public. Trice v. City of Pine Bluff, 2017 Ark. App. 638, 536 S.W.3d 139 (2017).

Compensation.

The city may order unsanitary buildings or buildings injurious to the public health destroyed without compensation to the owner if necessary to abate the nuisance and protect the public health and safety. Springfield v. City of Little Rock, 226 Ark. 462, 290 S.W.2d 620 (1956).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Kearney v. City of Little Rock, 302 S.W.3d 629 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009).
Kearney v. City of Little Rock, 302 S.W.3d 629 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “18,972, |9that appellant’s house had “become run-down, dilapidated, unsightly, dangerous, obnoxious and detrimental to the public welfare of the citizens of Little Rock” and was a “nuisance.”
Sharmon Rester v. City of El Dorado, 2025 Ark. App. 187 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “” The circuit court denied Rester’s counterclaim for $65,000 in damages for razing his buildings, finding that Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (Supp. 2023) authorizes cities to raze or remove buildings or houses “that the city council determines have become ‘dilapidated, unsightly,…”
Sharmon Rester v. City of El Dorado, 2025 Ark. App. 187 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “” The circuit court denied Rester’s counterclaim for $65,000 in damages for razing his buildings, finding that Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (Supp. 2023) authorizes cities to raze or remove buildings or houses “that the city council determines have become ‘dilapidated, unsightly,…”
Carlton Newsome v. City of El Dorado, Arkansas, 2022 Ark. App. 118 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “He argued that this violated Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-56-203 (Supp. 2021) and resulted in a taking of his property without due process.”
Trice v. City of Pine Bluff, 2017 Ark. App. 638 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (Supp. 2017). Furthermore, section 2-360 of the Pine Bluff City Ordinances sets forth the following: This division [Historic District Commission] shall not prevent the restoration, rehabilitation, renovation, preservation, alteration, construction, or…”
Adam Ferrif v. City of Hot Springs (8th Cir. 1996). “In addition, the city's counterclaim against the Ferrifs was for the full cost of removing the three homes, not only for 3 Statutory authority for municipalities to raze dilapidated buildings is granted by Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-203 (Michie 1987).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.