Chapter 42 does not rely on a single enforcement route, and the three it provides are expressly cumulative. Sec. 42-5(a) states that prosecution or conviction "shall never be a bar to any other remedy or relief," and Sec. 42-5(c) confirms the city may pursue the judicial remedies in addition to criminal prosecution.
They are not equally important in practice. The criminal provision is limited by geography, the judicial one requires the city to go to court, and the third — withholding permits and utility service — requires nothing of the city at all beyond declining to act.
| Mechanism | Inside the city | In the ETJ |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal offense (42-5) | Punishable under Sec. 1-6; each day is a separate offense | Not an offense; no fine applies |
| Injunction (42-6(1)) | Available, including for a threatened violation | Available — Sec. 42-5(c) reaches the ETJ |
| Damages to fund compliance work (42-6(2)) | Available | Available |
| Building and utility-installation permits withheld (42-7(a)) | Yes, for unplatted lots and unapproved developments | Not stated — subsection (a) is limited to tracts "within the city" |
| City water and wastewater service withheld (42-7(b)) | Yes, absent satisfactory evidence of compliance at the time of application | Yes — Sec. 42-7(b) says "any tract of land" and states no geographic limit |
| Wastewater, water and storm drainage plans not approved (42-7(c)) | Not stated — subsection (c) addresses the ETJ | Yes, inside a utility district whose creation or enlargement the city consented to |
Sec. 42-5 through Sec. 42-7. The criminal remedy is the one that stops at the city limits; the civil and utility remedies do not.
The violation of any provision of this chapter outside the corporate limits of the city but within the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction shall not constitute an offense, and no fine shall be applicable to the violation.
Sec. 42-5(a) does two things worth separating. It makes a violation of any provision of the chapter punishable under Sec. 1-6 of the Code — including, in its words, "the failure to do any act or perform any duty that is required herein," so an omission counts as much as an act. And it provides that each day a violation continues constitutes a separate offense.
That second clause is what changes the arithmetic. A continuing violation is not one penalty to be weighed against the cost of compliance; it is a penalty per day for as long as the condition persists. The schedule itself lives in Sec. 1-6, outside this chapter, and is not described here.
Sec. 42-7 does not punish anything. It simply directs three officials not to act — the building official, the utility official and the city engineer — and for most projects that is decisive.
The building official. Under Sec. 42-7(a), no building permit — and no other permit required to install any utility, public or private — may issue to serve a lot or tract inside the city with no properly recorded subdivision plat, or a development inside the city with no properly approved development plat. The words "or private" matter: routing around the city utility does not route around this.
The utility official. Under Sec. 42-7(b), no tract may receive any service from the city water or wastewater collection systems unless the applicant provides satisfactory evidence of compliance at the time of the application for service. The burden is on the applicant and the moment is fixed.
In the ETJ, one level up. Sec. 42-7(c) reaches the ETJ indirectly but effectively: within any utility district whose creation or enlargement the city consented to, the utility official may not approve wastewater or domestic water plans, and the city engineer may not approve storm drainage plans, until the chapter has been complied with for the tract the district serves. The ETJ carries no fine, but it can still be left without approved infrastructure plans.
The more restrictive rule governs. Sec. 42-9 makes Chapter 42 cumulative of other requirements imposed by ordinances and regulations of the city, and provides that to the extent of any inconsistency the more restrictive provision governs. Meeting the Chapter 42 figure does not discharge a stricter requirement located elsewhere in the Code. Note the reach of the provision: it speaks to ordinances and regulations of the city, so it settles conflicts within the Code and says nothing either way about private deed restrictions.
This is how the code reads; confirm with the city — or ask a builder who's actually pulled this permit in Houston. The authoritative text is the Houston Code of Ordinances; permitting questions go to Houston Permitting Center.