Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 399.215 (2026)

Violation; fine; payment of costs.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS ACT

Act 169 of 1970

399.215 Violation; fine; payment of costs.

Sec. 15.

(1) A person, individual, partnership, firm, corporation, organization, institution, or agency of government that violates this act is responsible for a civil violation and may be fined not more than $5,000.00.

(2) A person, individual, partnership, firm, corporation, organization, institution, or agency of government that violates this act may be ordered by the court to pay the costs to restore or replicate a resource unlawfully constructed, added to, altered, repaired, moved, excavated, or demolished.

History: Add. 1992, Act 96, Imd. Eff. June 18, 1992

Compiler's Notes:

For transfer of powers and duties of department of history, arts, and libraries or the Michigan historical center relating to the identification, certification, and preservation of historical sites to the Michigan state housing development authority, see E.R.O. No. 2009-26, compiled at MCL 399.752.

For transfer of powers and duties of the state historic preservation office relating to the identification, certification, and preservation of historical sites from the Michigan state housing development authority to the Michigan strategic fund, see E.R.O. No. 2019-3, compiled at MCL 125.1998.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2001–2001 · leading case: Draprop Corp. v. City of Ann Arbor, 636 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Draprop Corp. v. City of Ann Arbor, 636 N.W.2d 787 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “MCL 399.215. c In accordance with the lhda, defendant adopted an historical preservation ordinance and subsequently enacted an ordinance establishing the Individual Historic Properties Historic District, as set forth in the facts of the Draprop I opinion: In March 1990,…”

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.