Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4 (2025)
Unsafe buildings and unsafe premises described
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 4. (a) For purposes of this chapter, a building or structure, or any part of a building or structure, that is:
(1) in an impaired structural condition that makes it unsafe to a person or property;
(2) a fire hazard;
(3) a hazard to the public health;
(4) a public nuisance;
(5) dangerous to a person or property because of a violation of a statute or ordinance concerning building condition or maintenance; or
(6) vacant or blighted and not maintained in a manner that would allow human habitation, occupancy, or use under the requirements of a statute or an ordinance;
is considered an unsafe building.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, the following are considered unsafe premises:
(1) An unsafe building and the tract of real property on which the unsafe building is located.
(2) A tract of real property, not including land used for production agriculture, that does not contain a building or structure or contains a building or structure that is not considered an unsafe building, if the tract of real property is:
(A) a fire hazard;
(B) a hazard to public health;
(C) a public nuisance; or
(D) dangerous to a person or property because of a violation of a statute or an ordinance.
[Pre-Local Government Recodification Citation: 18-5-5.5-1(b) part.]
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.309, SEC.28. Amended by P.L.14-1991, SEC.9; P.L.66-2005, SEC.1; P.L.66-2014, SEC.26; P.L.164-2019, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2024 · leading case: Brown v. Anderson Bd. of Pub. Saf., 777 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Brown v. Anderson Bd. of Pub. Saf., 777 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Eicks testified that the house was unsafe because it was in violation of state and local ordinances, it was unsanitary and unfit for human habitation, and it was a fire hazard.”
City of Charlestown, Indiana v. Charlestown Pleasant Ridge Neighborhood Ass'n Corp., Joshua Craven, Tina Barnes, David & Ellen Keith, & Bolder Props., LLC, 111 N.E.3d 199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4 . An "unsafe premises" is an unsafe building and the property it is located on.”
Towne & Terrace Corp. v. City of Indianapolis, 122 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “* * * The City originally filed this action as an ordinance violation case, which makes I.C. § 36-7-9-4 applicable to the case at bar[.”
Groff v. City of Butler, 794 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “[2] Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4 (1997). If a determination has been made that a building or premises is unsafe, the enforcement authority may issue an order requiring action, including repair or removal of an unsafe building, however, the "ordered action must be reasonably related to…”
Jose Andrade v. City of Hammond & Hammond Bd. of Pub. Works & Saf., 114 N.E.3d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “] I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a). The statute is written in the disjunctive, meaning that a building may be considered unsafe if it falls into *515 any one of the six categories listed in the statute.”
Kopinski v. Health & Hosp. Corp. of Marion Cnty., 766 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Health and Hospital's evidence consisted merely of a statement by their attorney that Kopinski's property meets the criteria set out in Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4 for "unsafe premises.”
409 Land Trust v. City of South Bend, 709 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4, of the Unsafe Building Law defines unsafe buildings as a building or structure that is: “(1) in an impaired structural condition that makes it unsafe to a person or property; (3) a hazard to the public health; (5) dangerous to a person or property because of…”
Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Dep't of Metro. Dev. of the Consol. City of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). “" Indiana Code 36-7-9-4 provides the definition of "unsafe" in this context: "See.”
Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Comm'n of Grant Cnty. Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “3 [17] We now turn to Enslen’s argument that the APC presented no evidence at trial that the home violated a local zoning ordinance or Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4. He begins by attacking Highl/s testimony regarding the condition of the property.”
Andrade v. Hammond City of, No. 2:15-cv-00134 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2020). “Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4 .” Id. at 9 . The board also found that the Plaintiff did not “make repairs on the property to render it safe for occupants.”
Silver Lake Partners, LLC v. Town of Silver Lake, Indiana (mem. dec.), No. 18A-PL-2701 (Ind. Ct. App. June 7, 2019). “Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4 (2014). [10] When an enforcement authority issues an order requiring a property owner to take action on an unsafe building, the property owner may request a hearing before a designated hearing authority.”
Andrade v. City of Hammond, No. 2:19-cv-00430 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 6, 2020). “See Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4 (a)(1)–(3), (5). When a building is unsafe, a municipality may issue an order that requires, among other things, the vacating of the building, the sealing of the building, the removal of fire hazards or other public health hazards in or around the…”
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4(a): 4 cases
Brown v. Anderson Bd. of Pub. Saf., 777 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Eicks testified that the house was unsafe because it was in violation of state and local ordinances, it was unsanitary and unfit for human habitation, and it was a fire hazard.”
Jose Andrade v. City of Hammond & Hammond Bd. of Pub. Works & Saf., 114 N.E.3d 507 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “] I.C. § 36-7-9-4(a). The statute is written in the disjunctive, meaning that a building may be considered unsafe if it falls into *515 any one of the six categories listed in the statute.”
Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Comm'n of Grant Cnty. Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “3 [17] We now turn to Enslen’s argument that the APC presented no evidence at trial that the home violated a local zoning ordinance or Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4. He begins by attacking Highl/s testimony regarding the condition of the property.”
Sonia Long v. City of Logansport, Bldg. Comm'r, No. 09A04-1305-PL-249 (Ind. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2014).
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4(a)(6): 2 cases
Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Comm'n of Grant Cnty. Indiana, 60 N.E.3d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “3 [17] We now turn to Enslen’s argument that the APC presented no evidence at trial that the home violated a local zoning ordinance or Ind.Code § 36-7-9-4. He begins by attacking Highl/s testimony regarding the condition of the property.”
Mark A. Valdes & James H. Valdes v. Vincennes Bldg. & Saf. Comm'n & the City of Vincennes, No. 42A01-1302-PL-88 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2013).
Ind. Code § 36-7-9-4(c): 1 case
Towne & Terrace Corp. v. City of Indianapolis, 122 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). “* * * The City originally filed this action as an ordinance violation case, which makes I.C. § 36-7-9-4 applicable to the case at bar[.”
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.