La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625 (2026)

Violation of zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§5625. Violation of zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation

A.(1) All actions civil or criminal, created by statute, ordinance, or otherwise, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards enacted in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, which may be brought by parishes, municipalities, or their instrumentalities or by any person, firm, or corporation to require enforcement of and compliance with any zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation, imposed by any parish, municipality, or an instrumentality thereof, and based upon the violation by any person, firm, or corporation of such restriction or regulation, must be brought within five years from the first act constituting the commission of the violation.

(2) Where a violation has existed for a period of two years prior to August 1, 1956, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards enacted in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, the action must be brought within one year from and after August 1, 1956.

(3) With reference to violations of use regulations all such actions, civil or criminal, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, must be brought within five years from the date the parish, municipality, and the properly authorized instrumentality or agency thereof if such agency has been designated, first had been actually notified in writing of such violation.

(4) Except as relates to nonconforming signs and billboards, any prescription heretofore accrued by the passage of two years shall not be interrupted, disturbed, or lost by operation of the provisions of this Section.

B. In all cases where the prescription provided for herein has accrued, the particular property involved in the violation of the zoning restriction, building restriction or subdivision regulation shall enjoy the same legal status as land uses, construction features of buildings or subdivisions made nonconforming by the adoption of any zoning restriction, building restriction or subdivision regulation. However, the governing authority may provide for the removal of nonconforming signs and billboards in accord with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722.

C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection A of this Section, the following provisions shall be applicable only to the parishes of East Baton Rouge and Jefferson or their instrumentalities. All actions, civil or criminal, created by statute, ordinance, or otherwise, except those actions created for the purpose of amortization of nonconforming signs and billboards enacted in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 33:4722, which may be brought by such parishes or their instrumentalities or by any person, firm, or corporation to require enforcement of and compliance with any zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation, imposed by any such parish or their instrumentalities, and based upon the violation by any person, firm, or corporation of such restriction or regulation, must be brought within three years from the date such parish or its properly authorized instrumentality or agency, if such agency has been designated, received actual notice in writing of such violation, and except for violations of use regulations, all such actions, civil or criminal, must be brought within five years from the date of the first act constituting the commission of the violation. However, in the parish of East Baton Rouge, and municipalities included within such parish, all actions, civil or criminal, for violations of use regulations must be brought within five years from the date of the first act constituting the commission of the violation.

D. In the parishes of East Baton Rouge and Jefferson, in cases where the parish or its instrumentality, after receiving notification of violation, institutes an investigation or other administrative or judicial proceeding in order to seek a cessation of the violation and during the course of such investigation or proceeding makes the determination that the violation has in fact ceased, prescription shall be interrupted and if any recurrence or new violation commences thereafter, prescription will begin to accrue anew upon the date the parish or its properly authorized instrumentality or agency, if such agency has been designated, receives actual notice in writing of such recurrence or new violation. Except for violations of use regulations, all such actions, civil or criminal, must be brought within five years from the date of the recurrence or new act constituting the commission of the violation. However, in the parish of East Baton Rouge, and municipalities included within such parish, all actions, civil or criminal, for violations of use regulations must be brought within five years from the date of the first act constituting the commission of the violation.

E. The provisions of this Section shall supersede any other provisions of law inconsistent herewith.

F. The provisions of Subsections C and D of this Section shall not apply in the parish of Orleans or the city of New Orleans.

G.(1) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to property or areas which have been identified as historic districts, historical preservations or landmarks by any historic preservation district commission, landmarks commission, or the planning or zoning commission of a governing authority; however, the prescriptive period within which to bring an action to enforce a zoning restriction or regulation or a violation thereof shall be ten years from the first act constituting the commission of the violation.

(2) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply only to zoning or planning restrictions made by a municipality or parish, or other municipal or parish entity responsible for zoning, planning, or building restrictions.

(3)(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, the prescriptive period set forth therein regarding any action to enforce a zoning restriction or regulation or a violation thereof in the Vieux Carre section of the city of New Orleans shall begin to run on the date the properly authorized agency of the city actually receives written notice of the violation.

(b) The provisions of Subparagraph (a) of this Paragraph shall not divest a person of any right obtained as a result of prescription that accrued prior to August 15, 2007.

Acts 1956, No. 455, §§1, 2. Amended by Acts 1962, No. 415, §1; Acts 1972, No. 54, §1; Acts 1993, No. 1025, §1, eff. June 27, 1993; Acts 1997, No. 491, §1, eff. July 3, 1997; Acts 1997, No. 1146, §1; Acts 2001, No. 871, §1; Acts 2007, No. 263, §1, eff. August 15, 2007; Acts 2011, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 30, §1, eff. June 12, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 77 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case: Phillips' Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 116 So. 3d 92 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phillips' Bar & Restaurant, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 116 So. 3d 92 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 14× “which may be brought by parishes, municipalities, or their instrumentalities or by any person, firm, or corporation to require enforcement of and compliance with any zoning restriction, building restriction, or subdivision regulation, imposed by any parish, municipality, or an…”
Derbes v. City of New Orleans, 941 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 11× “R.S. 9:5625 was amended after the initial use of the property for event rentals, the question arises as to whether the original or the amended version of Section 5625 must be considered.”
Par. of Jefferson v. Jacobs, 623 So. 2d 1371 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “R.S. 9:5625(A), filed by defendant, Fred Jacobs, in a zoning violation dispute.”
Irland v. Barron, 230 So. 2d 880 (La. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “the preliminary injunction, but prior to argument, defendant filed an exception of no cause or right of action, admitting that his use of Tract "A" is in violation of the zoning ordinance, but asserted that this use began, and has continued for a period in excess of two years…”
Massi v. Rome, 19 So. 3d 485 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “R.S. 9:5625 which provides a prescriptive period for all actions based upon the violation of a zoning or building restriction commencing from the first act constituting commission of the violation.”
Craig v. City of New Orleans Bd. of Zoning Adjustments, 903 So. 2d 530 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “R.S. 9:5625(A), ostensibly to assert a prescription argument.”
Plaquemines Par. v. RIVER/ROAD CONST., 828 So. 2d 16 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “which may be brought by parishes, municipalities or their instrumentalities or by any person, firm or corporation to require enforcement of and compliance with any zoning restriction, building restriction or subdivision regulation, imposed by any parish, municipality or their…”
Redfearn v. Creppel, 436 So. 2d 1210 (La. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “While it is true there is a 45-day limitation for appeals from any decision of the Director of Safety and Permits, this does not supersede the provision of R.S. 9:5625 permitting actions to enjoin the violation of zoning regulations within a two year period.”
Lafayette City Par. v. Dien's Auto, 916 So. 2d 384 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “R.S. 9:5625, which Defendants assert provides the City-Parish a prescriptive period of "either two or five years from the date it receives written notice of violation of an ordinance.”
Humphrey v. Robertson, 709 So. 2d 333 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “R.S. 9:5625. [4] We disagree. *337 On January 31, 1992, a complaint was made to the City by Father Thomas Ellerman, who had lived across the street from the club for approximately eight years.”
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 32× “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
Gertler v. City of New Orleans, 346 So. 2d 228 (La. Ct. App. 1977). “The record lacks any relevant evidence indicating that the governing municipality had knowledge or written notice that the use of the premises violated any existing zoning ordinance such as to trigger the applicable prescriptive statute (Act 455 of 1956 as amended by Act 415 in…”
Show all 77 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(A): 12 cases
Par. of Jefferson v. Jacobs, 623 So. 2d 1371 (La. Ct. App. 1993). “R.S. 9:5625(A), filed by defendant, Fred Jacobs, in a zoning violation dispute.”
Craig v. City of New Orleans Bd. of Zoning Adjustments, 903 So. 2d 530 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:5625(A), ostensibly to assert a prescription argument.”
Derbes v. City of New Orleans, 941 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 9:5625 was amended after the initial use of the property for event rentals, the question arises as to whether the original or the amended version of Section 5625 must be considered.”
Massi v. Rome, 19 So. 3d 485 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:5625 which provides a prescriptive period for all actions based upon the violation of a zoning or building restriction commencing from the first act constituting commission of the violation.”
Par. of St. Charles ex rel. Dep't of Plan. v. Grimaldi Corp., 696 So. 2d 161 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(A)(1): 5 cases
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
James McCormick, D.D.S., & Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. \Butch\" Ford (2024).
James McCormick, D.D.S., & Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. \Butch\" Ford (2025).
Bossier Par. Police Jury v. Roy Gene Hicks, III & Allstar Constr. Cleanup & Hauling, LLC (La. Ct. App. 2025).
Par. of St. Charles ex rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 8 So. 3d 10 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(A)(3): 10 cases
Derbes v. City of New Orleans, 941 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 9:5625 was amended after the initial use of the property for event rentals, the question arises as to whether the original or the amended version of Section 5625 must be considered.”
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 52 So. 3d 875 (La. 2011).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(A)(8): 1 case
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(B): 9 cases
Redfearn v. Creppel, 436 So. 2d 1210 (La. Ct. App. 1983). “While it is true there is a 45-day limitation for appeals from any decision of the Director of Safety and Permits, this does not supersede the provision of R.S. 9:5625 permitting actions to enjoin the violation of zoning regulations within a two year period.”
Par. of Jefferson v. H4th & B, Inc., 155 So. 3d 567 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Panzeca v. City of New Orleans, 580 So. 2d 489 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
James McCormick, D.D.S., & Kim Morris McCormick v. Joe E. \Butch\" Ford (2024).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(C): 4 cases
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Wood Materials, LLC v. City of Harahan, 266 So. 3d 894 (La. 2019).
Wood Materials, LLC v. City of Harahan, 266 So. 3d 894 (La. 2019).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(E): 4 cases
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 50 So. 3d 894 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 9:5625. Defendants argued that the Parish had written notice of the alleged violations as early as April of 1996 and pursuant to state statute requiring suit to be filed within five years of the violation, the claims have prescribed.”
Par. of Jefferson v. H4th & B, Inc., 155 So. 3d 567 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Par. of St. Charles Ex Rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 52 So. 3d 875 (La. 2011).
Par. of St. Charles ex rel. Dep't of Plan. & Zoning v. Fontenot, 8 So. 3d 10 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(F): 2 cases
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Wood Materials LLC v. City of Harahan, 262 So. 3d 1034 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:5625(G): 2 cases
Derbes v. City of New Orleans, 941 So. 2d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 9:5625 was amended after the initial use of the property for event rentals, the question arises as to whether the original or the amended version of Section 5625 must be considered.”
Suzanne Wimsatt v. City of New Orleans (La. Ct. App. 2019).
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.