Does a possible municipal code violation have to be warned about immediately and what is the standard? Can they warn you years after work is complete?

Question

This is somewhat of a follow up to another post I made recently. If someone is building on a site newly purchased, and hires contractors / gets permits when required, and then three years later the city has a change of leadership, how long does the city have to decide you did something wrong and make you stop work? For example, let's say that the work you went to the city to get a permit for, you were told that you don't need a permit for... then three years later with a new leader the complaints made about your project by your neighbor get the attention of leadership, can they say oops sorry you did need a permit because your property was on a steep slope or in a protected area, and then blame the landowner / property owner and make them stop work?

Does the "waive an objection" / consent doctrine apply to building and possible code violations? Is it ok for them to do this if they previously gave you permission to work without a permit on some specific aspect of the job, while you sought permits on other parts in good faith?

This is kind of interwoven with whatever an SOL would be on this particular action. Landowner isn't necessarily trying to deceive, but was acting in good faith based on relying on the city's advice.

Seems like the home owner / land owner detrimentally relied on the bad advice of the city.

What notice should the city have to give the landowner for a fine to be legal? Do they have to notify right away as soon as a violation is brought to their attention? And if no, how long do they have to change their minds?

Answer 1

The statute of limitations for this varies greatly from place to place and may vary as well based upon the remedy sought. There might be one statute of limitations for imposing a fine, another for injunctive relief to tear down work, and a third to impose the sanction of not authorizing further work until past violations are cleared up.

For example, a stop work order is obviously moot once the work is done.

Whether you can rely on a statement from a city official to waive an obligation under a municipal ordinance depends upon the authority of that official to do so.

United States v. Laub, 385 U.S. 475 (1967), Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965), and Raley v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959), stand for the proposition that a defendant may not be punished for actions taken in good faith reliance upon authoritative assurances that he will not be punished for those actions.

Usually, no one, except possibly the city attorney or the city council has that authority. But this can vary significantly from one jurisdiction to another.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The City doesn't have to provide you with any notice that you are violating the law.