Va. Code » Title 36. Housing » Chapter 1. Housing Authorities Law » Article 7. Redevelopment Projects
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 36-48 (2026)

Creation of Redevelopment Areas

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A redevelopment area as defined in § 36-3 may be created by an authority as provided in this chapter and a redevelopment plan may be adopted to address conditions in such redevelopment area. The redevelopment plan shall (i) outline specific boundaries for the redevelopment area and designate for acquisition such properties as are necessary or appropriate for the clearance, replanning, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of the redevelopment area, (ii) be adopted in accordance with § 36-49, and (iii) satisfy the requirements as set forth in § 36-51.

1946, p. 278; Michie Suppl. 1946, § 3145(8a); 1975, c. 455; 1988, cc. 572, 591; 2006, c. 784.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1953–2009 · leading case: City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 323 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 323 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1984). · cites it 8× “Code § 36-48(a) contains a finding by the General Assembly that the existence of blighted areas causes the spread of disease and crime and constitutes a menace to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents.”
Reasor v. City of Norfolk, Va., 606 F. Supp. 788 (E.D. Va. 1984). · cites it 8× “Va.Code §§ 36-48, 36-48.1. In those sections the legislature expressly stated that clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and reconstruction of blighted areas in accordance with locally approved redevelopment plans are governmental functions of grave concern to the Commonwealth.”
Hunter v. Norfolk Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 78 S.E.2d 893 (Va. 1953). · cites it 6× “or lease of land within such areas for redevelopment in accordance with locally approved redevelopment plans are necessary for the public welfare and are public uses and public purposes for which public money may be spent and private property acquired by purchase or the power of…”
Runnels v. Staunton Redevelopment & Hous. Auth., 149 S.E.2d 882 (Va. 1966). · cites it 4× “tax revenues, cause an increase in and spread of disease and crime, and constitute a menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the Commonwealth; (b) that the clearance, replanning, rehabilitation and reconstruction of such blighted areas and the sale…”
Norfolk Fed'n of Bus. Districts v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 932 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Va. 1996). · cites it 10× “2d 120, 123 (1950)); Va.Code §§ 36-48 through -55 (demonstrating that the General Assembly has deemed projects like this Redevelopment Project to be rationally related to a legitimate purpose).”
Rudee Inlet Auth. v. Bastian, 147 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1966). · cites it 2× “) was not destroyed by a provision making land in a redevelopment project available for use by private enterprise because this power was merely incidental to the main purpose of the act. It was said in the opinion that thirty-two states had enacted similar legislation and that…”
Bristol Redevelopment & Hous. Auth. v. Denton, 93 S.E.2d 288 (Va. 1956). “Code, § 36-48, is a finding and declaration “(a) that there exist in many communities within this Commonwealth blighted areas (as herein defined) which impair economic values and tax revenues, cause an increase in and spread of disease and crime, and constitute a menace to the…”
Norfolk Bus. Dist. v. HUD, 932 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Va. 1996). · cites it 10× “2d 120, 123 (1950)); Va.Code §§ 36-48 through -55 (demonstrating that the General Assembly has deemed projects like this Redevelopment Project to be rationally related to a legitimate purpose).”
City of Roanoke Redevelopment v. B & B Holdings, L.L.C., 79 Va. Cir. 495 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2009). · cites it 6× “which impair economic values and tax revenues, cause an increase in and spread of disease and crime, and constitute a menace to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the Commonwealth.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 36-48(a) — 1 case
City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 323 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1984). “Code § 36-48(a) contains a finding by the General Assembly that the existence of blighted areas causes the spread of disease and crime and constitutes a menace to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 36-48(b) — 1 case
City of Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 323 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1984). “Code § 36-48(a) contains a finding by the General Assembly that the existence of blighted areas causes the spread of disease and crime and constitutes a menace to the health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents.”
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.