O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 41-2-9 (2019)

County or municipal ordinances relating to unfit buildings or structures

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In addition to any other remedies or enforcement mechanisms available, upon the adoption of an ordinance finding that dwelling, building, or structure conditions of the character described in Code Section 41-2-7 exist within a county or municipality, the governing body of such county or municipality is authorized to adopt ordinances relating to the dwellings, buildings, or structures within such county or municipality which are unfit for human habitation or commercial, industrial, or business uses and not in compliance with applicable codes, which are vacant and being used in connection with the commission of drug crimes, or which constitute an endangerment to the public

health or safety as a result of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Such ordinances shall include at least the following provisions: (1) That it is the duty of the owner of every dwelling, building, structure, or property within the jurisdiction to construct and maintain such dwelling, building, structure, or property in conformance with applicable codes in force within the jurisdiction, or such ordinances which regulate and prohibit activities on property and which declare it to be a public nuisance to construct or maintain any dwelling, building, structure, or property in violation of such codes or ordinances; (2) That a public officer be designated or appointed to exercise the powers prescribed by the ordinances; (3) That whenever a request is filed with the public officer by a public authority or by at least five residents of the municipality or by five residents of the unincorporated area of the county if the property in question is located in the unincorporated area of the county charging that any dwelling, building, structure, or property is unfit for human habitation or for commercial, industrial, or business use and not in compliance with applicable codes; is vacant and being used in connection with the commission of drug crimes; or constitutes an endangerment to the public health or safety as a result of unsanitary or unsafe conditions, the public officer shall make an investigation or inspection of the specific dwelling, building, structure, or property. If the officer’s investigation or inspection identifies that any dwelling, building, structure, or property is unfit for human habitation or for commercial, industrial, or business use and not in compliance with applicable codes; is vacant and being used in connection with the commission of drug crimes; or constitutes an endangerment to the public health or safety as a result of unsanitary or unsafe conditions, the public officer may issue a complaint in rem against the lot, tract, or parcel of real property on which such dwelling, building, or structure is situated or where such public health hazard or general nuisance exists and shall cause summons and a copy of the complaint to be served on the interested parties for such dwelling, building, or structure. The complaint shall identify the subject real property by appropriate street address and official tax map reference; identify the interested parties; state with particularity the factual basis for the action; and contain a statement of the action sought by the public officer to abate the alleged nuisance. The summons shall notify the interested parties that a hearing will be held before a court of competent jurisdiction as determined by Code Section 41-2-5, at a date and time certain and at a place within the county or municipality where the property is located. Such hearing shall be held not less than 15 days nor more than 45 days after the filing of said complaint

in the proper court. The interested parties shall have the right to file an answer to the complaint and to appear in person or by attorney and offer testimony at the time and place fixed for hearing; (4) That if, after such notice and hearing, the court determines that the dwelling, building, or structure in question is unfit for human habitation or is unfit for its current commercial, industrial, or business use and not in compliance with applicable codes; is vacant and being used in connection with the commission of drug crimes; or constitutes an endangerment to the public health or safety as a result of unsanitary or unsafe conditions, the court shall state in writing findings of fact in support of such determination and shall issue and cause to be served upon the interested parties that have answered the complaint or appeared at the hearing an order: (A) If the repair, alteration, or improvement of the said dwelling, building, or structure can be made at a reasonable cost in relation to the present value of the dwelling, building, or structure, requiring the owner, within the time specified in the order, to repair, alter, or improve such dwelling, building, or structure so as to bring it into full compliance with the applicable codes relevant to the cited violation and, if applicable, to secure the structure so that it cannot be used in connection with the commission of drug crimes; or (B) If the repair, alteration, or improvement of the said dwelling, building, or structure in order to bring it into full compliance with applicable codes relevant to the cited violations cannot be made at a reasonable cost in relation to the present value of the dwelling, building, or structure, requiring the owner, within the time specified in the order, to demolish and remove such dwelling, building, or structure and all debris from the property. For purposes of this Code section, the court shall make its determination of “reasonable cost in relation to the present value of the dwelling, building, or structure” without consideration of the value of the land on which the structure is situated; provided, however, that costs of the preparation necessary to repair, alter, or improve a structure may be considered. Income and financial status of the owner shall not be factor in the court’s determination. The present value of the structure and the costs of repair, alteration, or improvement may be established by affidavits of real estate appraisers with a Georgia appraiser classification as provided in Chapter 39A of Title 43, qualified building contractors, or qualified building inspectors without actual testimony presented. Costs of repair, alteration, or improvement of the structure shall be the cost necessary to bring the structure into compliance with the applicable codes relevant to the cited violations in force in the jurisdiction;

(5) That, if the owner fails to comply with an order to repair or demolish the dwelling, building, or structure, the public officer may cause such dwelling, building, or structure to be repaired, altered, or improved or to be vacated and closed or demolished. Such abatement action shall commence within 270 days after the expiration of time specified in the order for abatement by the owner. Any time during which such action is prohibited by a court order issued pursuant to Code Section 41-2-13 or any other equitable relief granted by a court of competent jurisdiction shall not be counted toward the 270 days in which such abatement action must commence. The public officer shall cause to be posted on the main entrance of the building, dwelling, or structure a placard with the following words: “This building is unfit for human habitation or commercial, industrial, or business use and does not comply with the applicable codes or has been ordered secured to prevent its use in connection with drug crimes or constitutes an endangerment to public health or safety as a result of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. The use or occupation of this building is prohibited and unlawful.”; (6) If the public officer has the structure demolished, reasonable effort shall be made to salvage reusable materials for credit against the cost of demolition. The proceeds of any moneys received from the sale of salvaged materials shall be used or applied against the cost of the demolition and removal of the structure, and proper records shall be kept showing application of sales proceeds. Any such sale of salvaged materials may be made without the necessity of public advertisement and bid. The public officer and governing authority are relieved of any and all liability resulting from or occasioned by the sale of any such salvaged materials, including, without limitation, defects in such salvaged materials; and (7) That the amount of the cost of demolition, including all court costs, appraisal fees, administrative costs incurred by the county tax commissioner or municipal tax collector or city revenue officer, and all other costs necessarily associated with the abatement action, including restoration to grade of the real property after demolition, shall be a lien against the real property upon which such cost was incurred. (b)(1) The lien provided for in paragraph (7) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall attach to the real property upon the filing of a certified copy of the order requiring repair, closure, or demolition in the office of the clerk of superior court in the county where the real property is located and shall relate back to the date of the filing of the lis pendens notice required under subsection (c) of Code Section

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Yasmine's Ent. Hall v. City of Marietta, 663 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yasmine's Ent. Hall v. City of Marietta, 663 S.E.2d 741 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 18× “Because OCGA § 41-2-9 (d) applies in this case and provides for a direct appeal from the municipal court’s order, we reverse.”
John Faaborg v. Columbia Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order requiring Faaborg to bring the property into compliance within 60 days and providing that, if the property was not brought into compliance by this deadline, Columbia County would be able to remove the debris from the…”
Derby Props., LLC v. J. W. \Bill\" Watson III (2018). · cites it 7× “We determine that OCGA § 41-2-9 (the “nuisance abatement statute”) did not prevent the County from conducting a nonjudicial tax foreclosure sale in this case.”
Derby Props., LLC v. Watson, 816 S.E.2d 766 (2018). · cites it 6× “We determine that OCGA § 41-2-9 (the "nuisance abatement statute") did not prevent the County from conducting a nonjudicial tax foreclosure sale in this case.”
Green Turnkey Corp. v. City of Atlanta (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “In these cases, the property owners assert that the reasoning in DLT List also applies to the statute creating the City’s demolition lien, OCGA § 41-2-9 (a) (7), because it provides: That the amount of the cost of demolition, including all court costs, appraisal fees,…”
Porche v. Noriega, 754 S.E.2d 112 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Porche contends that the superior court erred in holding that (1) the petitions were not in compliance with OCGA § 48-4-78, and (2) the City’s nuisance ordinance is unenforceable under OCGA § 41-2-9. Discerning no error, we affirm.”
Robert Porche, in His Capacity as the Tax Comm'r/collector for the City of Woodstock, Georgia v. Juan Pablo (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Porche contends that the superior court erred in (1) holding that the petitions were not in compliance with OCGA § 48-4-78, and (2) the City’s nuisance ordinance is unenforceable under OCGA § 41-2-9. Discerning no error, we affirm.”
Home Equity Credit Series 2021, LLC v. Patrick Labat, Soley in His Capacity as Sheriff of Fulton Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “However, OCGA § 41-2-9 (a) (7) provides that: the amount of the cost of demolition, including all court costs, appraisal fees, administrative costs incurred by the .”
Eddie Denhardt v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (11th Cir. 2026). “real property,” O.C.G.A. § 41-2-9(a)(7)—was not enti- tled to excess funds from a tax sale of real property.”
— 41-2-9(a)(7) — 1 case
Eddie Denhardt v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (11th Cir. 2026). “real property,” O.C.G.A. § 41-2-9(a)(7)—was not enti- tled to excess funds from a tax sale of real property.”
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.