When Cities Demand “Third-Party Inspections” of 20–40-Year-Old Construction: Why This Practice Is Legally Unsound Under Texas Law

Over the past year, I have been contacted by multiple Texas property owners whose municipalities are demanding that they hire—and pay for—a so-called “third-party inspector” to retroactively evaluate construction completed decades ago, as though it were new construction subject to current building codes. These demands are often framed as prerequisites to permit closure, continued occupancy, or recognition of an existing use that has been in place for many years.

This practice is not supported by Texas law. It is also technically indefensible from a building-science standpoint.

Most importantly for attorneys, it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding—or misapplication—of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 214, the only statutory framework under which municipalities regulate existing buildings.

The Actual Statutory Authority: Chapter 214 Is About Current Conditions, Not Construction History

Texas municipalities do not possess inherent authority to retroactively enforce modern construction codes. Their authority over existing buildings is limited to what the Legislature has expressly granted in Texas Local Government Code Chapter 214.

Municipal officials frequently cite Chapter 214 when attempting to justify retroactive inspections. However, when the statute is read carefully—and in full—it becomes clear that it does not authorize what many cities are attempting to do.

Verbatim Statutory Language: Tex. Loc. Gov’t Code § 214.0011

The operative provision often invoked is Texas Local Government Code § 214.0011, titled “Additional Authority to Secure Substandard Building.” The statute provides, in relevant part:

§ 214.0011. Additional Authority to Secure Substandard Building

(a) A municipality by ordinance may establish minimum standards for the use and occupancy of buildings in the municipality regardless of the date of their construction and may adopt other ordinances as necessary to carry out this section.

(b) The municipality may secure a building the municipality determines:(1) violates the minimum standards; and(2) is unoccupied or is occupied only by persons who do not have a right of possession to the building.

(c) Before the 11th day after the date the building is secured, the municipality shall give notice to the owner by:(1) personally serving the owner with written notice;(2) depositing the notice in the United States mail addressed to the owner at the owner’s post office address;(3) publishing the notice at least twice within a 10-day period in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the building is located if personal service cannot be obtained and the owner’s post office address is unknown; or(4) posting the notice on or near the front door of the building if personal service cannot be obtained and the owner’s post office address is unknown.

(d) The notice must contain:(1) an identification, which is not required to be a legal description, of the building and the property on which it is located;(2) a description of the violation of the municipal standards that is present at the building;(3) a statement that the municipality will secure or has secured, as the case may be, the building; and(4) an explanation of the owner’s entitlement to request a hearing about any matter relating to the municipality’s securing of the building.

(e) The municipality shall conduct a hearing at which the owner may testify or present witnesses or written information about any matter relating to the municipality’s securing of the building if, within 30 days after the date the municipality secures the building, the owner files with the municipality a written request for the hearing. The municipality shall conduct the hearing within 20 days after the date the request is filed.

(f) A municipality has the same authority to assess expenses under this section as it has to assess expenses under Section 214.001(n). A lien is created under this section in the same manner that a lien is created under Section 214.001(n) and is subject to the same conditions as a lien created under that section.

(g) The authority granted by this section is in addition to that granted by Section 214.001.

What § 214.0011 Actually Authorizes—and What It Does Not

When read as written, § 214.0011 authorizes only one thing:municipal action to secure a substandard building based on present conditions, subject to notice, hearing, and due-process protections.

Critically:

• The statute regulates minimum standards for use and occupancy, not construction methods.

• It applies only where a building currently violates those standards.

• It presumes the existence of a specific, identifiable condition that justifies securing the building.

• It does not authorize investigative fishing expeditions.

• It does not authorize retroactive application of modern construction codes.

• It does not authorize compelling owners to fund third-party inspections to reconstruct construction history.

Nothing in § 214.0011 allows a city to treat a 20- to 40-year-old structure as if it were newly built and subject to current code editions.

“Regardless of the Date of Construction” Does Not Mean “Subject to Current Codes”

Municipalities often seize on the phrase “regardless of the date of their construction” in subsection (a). That phrase has a specific and limited meaning.

It means that old buildings are not exempt from minimum safety standards simply because they are old. It does not mean that:

• The building must comply with codes adopted decades later

• Original construction must be re-validated

• Concealed work must be retroactively inspected

• Modern prescriptive requirements can be imposed without new work

Chapter 214 is a hazard-abatement statute, not a mechanism for re-inspecting lawful construction long after the fact.

No Authority for Mandatory Third-Party Inspections

Nowhere in Chapter 214—or anywhere else in the Texas Local Government Code—is there authority for a municipality to require a property owner to hire and pay for a third-party inspector to “certify” historic construction.

Such demands improperly shift the burden of proof. Under Texas law, it is the municipality’s obligation to identify a violation of an enforceable standard—not the owner’s obligation to disprove hypothetical noncompliance with modern codes.

The Technical Reality: You Cannot Inspect History

From a construction and inspection standpoint, retroactive code “inspections” are inherently speculative.

Critical elements of construction—foundation reinforcement, anchorage, framing connections, electrical rough-ins, plumbing venting, combustion air—are concealed once construction is complete. Modern inspection systems exist precisely because these elements must be inspected during construction, not decades later.

Any third-party opinion rendered today about historic compliance is necessarily limited to observable conditions, not original construction compliance. Treating such opinions as regulatory determinations is technically indefensible.

Conclusion

Texas Local Government Code § 214.0011 does not authorize municipalities to retroactively enforce modern building codes, reclassify existing structures as new construction, or compel property owners to fund third-party inspections of decades-old work.

When municipalities attempt to do so, they are not exercising legitimate enforcement authority. They are exceeding it.

For attorneys evaluating these disputes, the statutory problem is not subtle. The authority simply is not there.