Tex. Codes » Local Government Code · TITLE 7. REGULATION OF LAND USE, STRUCTURES, BUSINESSES, AND RELATED ACTIVITIES · SUBTITLE A. MUNICIPAL REGULATORY AUTHORITY · CHAPTER 211. MUNICIPAL ZONING AUTHORITY
Texas Codes

Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.009 (2026)

Authority Of Board

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section TX-LEGstatutes.capitol.texas.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 211.009. AUTHORITY OF BOARD. (a) The board of adjustment may:

(1) hear and decide an appeal that alleges error in an order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement of this subchapter or an ordinance adopted under this subchapter;

(2) hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of a zoning ordinance when the ordinance requires the board to do so;

(3) authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of a zoning ordinance if the variance is not contrary to the public interest and, due to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship, and so that the spirit of the ordinance is observed and substantial justice is done; and

(4) hear and decide other matters authorized by an ordinance adopted under this subchapter.

(b) In exercising its authority under Subsection (a)(1), the board may reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the administrative official's order, requirement, decision, or determination from which an appeal is taken and make the correct order, requirement, decision, or determination, and for that purpose the board has the same authority as the administrative official.

(b-1) In exercising its authority under Subsection (a)(3), the board may consider the following as grounds to determine whether compliance with the ordinance as applied to a structure that is the subject of the appeal would result in unnecessary hardship:

(1) the financial cost of compliance is greater than 50 percent of the appraised value of the structure as shown on the most recent appraisal roll certified to the assessor for the municipality under Section 26.01, Tax Code;

(2) compliance would result in a loss to the lot on which the structure is located of at least 25 percent of the area on which development may physically occur;

(3) compliance would result in the structure not being in compliance with a requirement of a municipal ordinance, building code, or other requirement;

(4) compliance would result in the unreasonable encroachment on an adjacent property or easement; or

(5) the municipality considers the structure to be a nonconforming structure.

(c) The concurring vote of 75 percent of the members of the board is necessary to:

(1) reverse an order, requirement, decision, or determination of an administrative official;

(2) decide in favor of an applicant on a matter on which the board is required to pass under a zoning ordinance; or

(3) authorize a variation from the terms of a zoning ordinance.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 149, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 126, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1993; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 724, Sec. 2, eff. Aug. 28, 1995.

Amended by:

Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 318 (H.B. 1475), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2001–2008 · leading case: Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004). “Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.009(b). The fact that the BOA's action was later determined to be incorrect is not necessarily probative of whether their prior actions were in discharge of the duties generally assigned to them.”
City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 189 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. 2006). “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.009(a)(3). This same language is echoed in the Dallas city ordinance, which further limits the board's decision-making authority, although not to the extent that the Court determines today.”
City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 127 S.W.3d 220 (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “" Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 211.009 (a)(3) (Vernon 1999).”
Richard Ferris v. City of Austin & Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Austin (Tex. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 211.009 (a)(3); Austin, Tex.”
Sarah Horton v. City of Smithville, Texas (Tex. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 211.009 (a)(1) (West 1999).”
the Town of South Padre Island, Texas on Behalf of Its Bd. of Adjustment A/K/A Bd. of Adjustments & Appeals v. Cantu, Alonzo & Yolanda R. Cantu (Tex. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 211.009 (c) (Vernon 1999).”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.009(a)(3) — 1 case
City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 189 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. 2006). “" TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.009(a)(3). This same language is echoed in the Dallas city ordinance, which further limits the board's decision-making authority, although not to the extent that the Court determines today.”
— Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.009(b) — 1 case
Ballantyne v. Champion Builders, Inc., 144 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2004). “Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.009(b). The fact that the BOA's action was later determined to be incorrect is not necessarily probative of whether their prior actions were in discharge of the duties generally assigned to them.”
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.