Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 167 of 1917
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539 (2026)

“Dangerous building” defined.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

HOUSING LAW OF MICHIGAN


Act 167 of 1917


125.539 “Dangerous building” defined.

Sec. 139.

    As used in sections 138 to 142, "dangerous building" means a building or structure that has 1 or more of the following defects or is in 1 or more of the following conditions:

    (a) A door, aisle, passageway, stairway, or other means of exit does not conform to the approved fire code of the city, village, or township in which the building or structure is located.

    (b) A portion of the building or structure is damaged by fire, wind, flood, deterioration, neglect, abandonment, vandalism, or other cause so that the structural strength or stability of the building or structure is appreciably less than it was before the damage and does not meet the minimum requirements of this act or a building code of the city, village, or township in which the building or structure is located for a new building or structure, purpose, or location.

    (c) A part of the building or structure is likely to fall, become detached or dislodged, or collapse and injure persons or damage property.

    (d) A portion of the building or structure has settled to an extent that walls or other structural portions of the building or structure have materially less resistance to wind than is required in the case of new construction by this act or a building code of the city, village, or township in which the building or structure is located.

    (e) The building or structure, or a part of the building or structure, because of dilapidation, deterioration, decay, faulty construction, the removal or movement of some portion of the ground necessary for the support, or for other reason, is likely to partially or completely collapse, or some portion of the foundation or underpinning of the building or structure is likely to fall or give way.

    (f) The building, structure, or a part of the building or structure is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is used.

    (g) The building or structure is damaged by fire, wind, or flood, is dilapidated or deteriorated and becomes an attractive nuisance to children who might play in the building or structure to their danger, becomes a harbor for vagrants, criminals, or immoral persons, or enables persons to resort to the building or structure for committing a nuisance or an unlawful or immoral act.

    (h) A building or structure used or intended to be used for dwelling purposes, including the adjoining grounds, because of dilapidation, decay, damage, faulty construction or arrangement, or for other reason, is unsanitary or unfit for human habitation, is in a condition that the health officer determines is likely to cause sickness or disease, or is likely to injure the health, safety, or general welfare of people living in the dwelling.

    (i) A building or structure is vacant, dilapidated, and open at door or window, leaving the interior of the building exposed to the elements or accessible to entrance by trespassers.

    (j) A building or structure remains unoccupied for a period of 180 consecutive days or longer, and is not listed as being available for sale, lease, or rent with a real estate broker licensed under article 25 of the occupational code, 1980 PA 299, MCL 339.2401 to 339.2518. For purposes of this subdivision, "building or structure" includes, but is not limited to, a commercial building or structure. This subdivision does not apply to either of the following:

    (i) A building or structure if the owner or agent does both of the following:

    (A) Notifies a local law enforcement agency in whose jurisdiction the building or structure is located that the building or structure will remain unoccupied for a period of 180 consecutive days. The notice shall be given to the local law enforcement agency by the owner or agent not more than 30 days after the building or structure becomes unoccupied.

    (B) Maintains the exterior of the building or structure and adjoining grounds in accordance with this act or a building code of the city, village, or township in which the building or structure is located.

    (ii) A secondary dwelling of the owner that is regularly unoccupied for a period of 180 days or longer each year, if the owner notifies a local law enforcement agency in whose jurisdiction the dwelling is located that the dwelling will remain unoccupied for a period of 180 consecutive days or more each year. An owner who has given the notice prescribed by this subparagraph shall notify the law enforcement agency not more than 30 days after the dwelling no longer qualifies for this exception. As used in this subparagraph, "secondary dwelling" means a dwelling, including, but not limited to, a vacation home, hunting cabin, or summer home, that is occupied by the owner or a member of the owner's family during part of a year.

History: Add. 1969, Act 61, Eff. Sept. 1, 1969 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 113, Eff. Mar. 31, 1993 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 144, Eff. Mar. 31, 1993 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 55, Imd. Eff. July 14, 2003

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: McDowell v. City of Detroit, 690 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McDowell v. City of Detroit, 690 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “” Plaintiff asserted that the condition of the building at issue met at least two of the definitions of a dangerous building as defined in MCL 125.539 and presented both expert and lay testimony supporting her *360 assertions.”
Belinda Marie Fitzpatrick v. Kyle Hanney, 138 F.4th 991 (6th Cir. 2025). “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539 (h) (2021). Based on these regulations, any reasonable housing-code officer could conclude that a house “coated” in chicken feces—so much so that the stench “ma[de] it difficult to breath[e]” and the home could not be walked through without stepping…”
Pecoraro v. Dep't of Corr., 300 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “On September 19, 1979, defendant filed a cross-appeal, contesting the validity of the trial court’s determination that the housing act is applicable to the state prisons. In our opinion, the learned trial court erred in deciding that the housing act was applicable to the prison,…”
Donna Simonte v. Twp. of Roscommon (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “In response, the Township argued that Roscommon Township Ordinance 73 parallels MCL 125.539 and that the definitions of a “dangerous building” in both the ordinance and statute include a building that is damaged or deteriorating such that the structure or part of the structure…”
Est. of Manuel Ramos-Pelayo Jr v. Aaj Holdings LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “538 and MCL 125.539, two sections of the Housing Law of Michigan (HLM), MCL 125.”
Nagam Nabil Jamel v. Wbr Kings Arms LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “538, which states: “It is unlawful for any owner or agent thereof to keep or maintain any dwelling or part thereof which is a dangerous building as defined in [MCL 125.539].” MCL 125.539 states, “ ‘dangerous building’ means a building or structure that .”
Kevin Jackson v. Agna Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “We decline to address Jackson’s first unpreserved issue because we lack facts necessary to determine it.”
Rosalie Rockov v. Lilley Pointe Condo. Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “, plaintiff additionally argued that because of the MCC violation, the Chambers’ condominium unit constituted a dangerous building under MCL 125.539, and keeping a dangerous building is unlawful pursuant to MCL 125.”
City of Southfield v. Shefa LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) In Count I, the city sought a declaration that the property was a “dangerous building” as defined in MCL 125.539(b), (g), (i), and (j), and a “nuisance” as defined in MCL 125.”
1822 1822 LLC v. Charter Twp. of Canton (E.D. Mich. 2023). “§ 125.539. Once the existence of a dangerous building is established, the statute and the Township ordinance require notice to the property owner.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539(a) — 1 case
Pecoraro v. Dep't of Corr., 300 N.W.2d 418 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980). “On September 19, 1979, defendant filed a cross-appeal, contesting the validity of the trial court’s determination that the housing act is applicable to the state prisons. In our opinion, the learned trial court erred in deciding that the housing act was applicable to the prison,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539(b) — 1 case
City of Southfield v. Shefa LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “) In Count I, the city sought a declaration that the property was a “dangerous building” as defined in MCL 125.539(b), (g), (i), and (j), and a “nuisance” as defined in MCL 125.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539(c) — 3 cases
Est. of Manuel Ramos-Pelayo Jr v. Aaj Holdings LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “538 and MCL 125.539, two sections of the Housing Law of Michigan (HLM), MCL 125.”
Donna Simonte v. Twp. of Roscommon (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “In response, the Township argued that Roscommon Township Ordinance 73 parallels MCL 125.539 and that the definitions of a “dangerous building” in both the ordinance and statute include a building that is damaged or deteriorating such that the structure or part of the structure…”
Kevin Jackson v. Agna Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “We decline to address Jackson’s first unpreserved issue because we lack facts necessary to determine it.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539(f) — 1 case
McDowell v. City of Detroit, 690 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “” Plaintiff asserted that the condition of the building at issue met at least two of the definitions of a dangerous building as defined in MCL 125.539 and presented both expert and lay testimony supporting her *360 assertions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.539(h) — 1 case
McDowell v. City of Detroit, 690 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “” Plaintiff asserted that the condition of the building at issue met at least two of the definitions of a dangerous building as defined in MCL 125.539 and presented both expert and lay testimony supporting her *360 assertions.”
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.