Sec. 33-247(a) grants a demolition certificate “only if” two things are true, joined by and:
A sound building that is merely uneconomic fails the first limb: it has not “seriously deteriorated to an unusable state”. The second limb is more forgiving than it first looks, and it is not an affordability test. Sec. 33-247(c) bases unreasonable economic hardship on stated criteria: that the property is incapable of earning a reasonable return “regardless of whether the return is the most profitable return, including without limitation, regardless of whether the costs of maintenance or improvement of the property exceed its fair market value”; that the owner has shown it cannot be adapted to any other use yielding a reasonable return, whether by them, a purchaser or a lessee; and that the owner has made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to find a purchaser or lessee interested in acquiring the property and preserving it. For a nonprofit applicant the test is different again — whether denial financially prevents or seriously interferes with carrying out its mission. Subsection (d)’s “unusual and compelling circumstance” is a separate route with its own criteria.
An earlier version of this page said that being able to afford the repairs defeats the hardship route. That was wrong. Ability to pay is not the test, and (c)(1) says in terms that maintenance or improvement costs exceeding fair market value do not by themselves settle it.
The burden sits on the applicant either way. The subsection says the HAHC’s finding rests on “the preponderance of credible evidence presented by the applicant”.
The common belief is that if the HAHC does not act within 90 days, demolition goes ahead. Read Sec. 33-250 from the top, because it opens with two prohibitions before it gets to the entitlement.
Sec. 33-250(a): the director shall not issue a 90-day waiver for any protected landmark, or for any property in the OSWPHD. Sec. 33-250(b): the director shall not issue one for any property in any historic district other than a place of worship.
Only then does Sec. 33-250(c) create the entitlement, and it is scoped to match: “Only for landmarks and archaeological sites located outside of historic districts, and places of worship within an historic district”. So for an ordinary contributing house inside a historic district, the waiver route does not exist. Waiting out the clock is not a strategy there.
Where the waiver is available, Sec. 33-250(d) attaches a price — but note who it names. The subsection says “any landmark or architectural site for which a 90-day waiver certificate is granted” loses eligibility for tax exemptions or other financial benefits authorised by the city council based on its designation. It does not name a place of worship in a historic district, the other category (c) makes eligible.
| What the property is | Certificate needed to demolish? | 90-day waiver available? |
|---|---|---|
| Protected landmark | Yes — Sec. 33-236(g) | No — Sec. 33-250(a) prohibits it outright |
| Landmark, or contributing structure, within the OSWPHD | Yes — Sec. 33-236(g) | No — Sec. 33-250(a) prohibits it outright for any property in the OSWPHD |
| Contributing structure in a historic district | Yes — Sec. 33-236(g) | No — Sec. 33-250(b), unless the property is a place of worship |
| Non-contributing structure in a historic district | No — Sec. 33-237(c) exempts its demolition | Not reached — no certificate is required in the first place |
| Landmark outside any historic district | Yes — Sec. 33-236(g) | Yes — Sec. 33-250(c) |
| Building or object on an archaeological site | Yes — Sec. 33-236(c) | Yes if the site is outside a historic district — Sec. 33-250(c) |
| Undesignated building where an application for LANDMARK, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE or HISTORIC DISTRICT designation meeting the Sec. 33-224(b) minimum age criteria has been initiated | Sec. 33-223(a) applies division 4 as though it had been designated. It does not itself classify a building as contributing or non-contributing, so which rule within division 4 reaches you is not settled by that subsection alone | Follows the status it is treated as having |
Two separate questions, and they turn on different things. Whether you need a certificate depends on the building’s DESIGNATION STATUS under Sec. 33-236(g) — landmark, protected landmark, or contributing structure. Whether the 90-day waiver is available turns on both: Sec. 33-250(a) bars it for any protected landmark (a designation test) and for any property in the OSWPHD (a locational one), and Sec. 33-250(b) bars it by location for any historic district other than a place of worship. A non-contributing structure in a historic district needs no demolition certificate at all: Sec. 33-237(c) exempts it. And Sec. 33-236(g) is not the only demolition provision — Sec. 33-236(c) separately requires a certificate to demolish a building, structure or object located on or in an archaeological site.
Sec. 33-202(a) sets the article’s reach: it applies to a building that is a landmark or protected landmark, or that sits in a historic district or on an archaeological site. A building with none of those is outside this article.
With one important exception, and it can arrive without warning. Sec. 33-223(a) provides that on the initiation of an application for designation as a landmark, archaeological site or historic district that satisfies the minimum age criteria of Sec. 33-224(b), the building proposed for designation — and any building in an area proposed as a historic district — becomes subject to the requirements of division 4 “as though” it had already been designated by city council. The same happens if the HAHC denies an application for a certificate of non-designation under Sec. 33-228. Sec. 33-223(b) then sets when that status ends. So an undesignated building can be pulled under the demolition rule by someone else’s application.
Two limits worth knowing even so. Sec. 33-202(b) says nothing in the article authorises the city to regulate the use of a building — historic designation is not zoning. And Sec. 33-202(c) says the city does not regulate interior characteristics, with a narrow exception: an interior change to a landmark, protected landmark, or contributing structure in an historic district that has the effect of changing an exterior characteristic. The exception reaches those three categories, not any building.
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.