My zoning requires only one dwelling per ten acres, a 75’ setback from the center of the road, and a 50’ setback from the property line. Permits are required only for erecting buildings, septic systems, and connecting driveways to the road. The driveway permit doesn’t actually exist - they passed the law years ago, but no one ever bothered to create the form. Other than those things, I can do anything I want on my property. YMWV greatly.
We are facing this situation where I work. On our grounds there is an old building which hasn’t been occupied for decades but which has been given historical protection. So we can’t demolish the building. But what we can legally do is remove all its windows and punch some holes in the roof to expose it to the elements. In a fewyears we expect it will be damaged to the point where it will collapse on its own. Once it collapses due to “natural causes” we can demolish what’s left and remove it the remains.
Heh. When I lived in New Jersey the brother of my neighbor was a local builder. His crew came to renovate her house, and whoops - demolished it by accident. No permit.
It seems his crew made lots of mistakes.
We did get consulted when the new house was close to our line, but we got along pretty well and came to a compromise.
Out here, the covenants of the subdivision are a lot more restrictive than city zoning laws.
You can get further with a permit and ten sticks of dynamite than you can with a permit.
Do you know any more of this story? Cause, frankly, on a scale of 1 to 10 that particular fuckup has to be a fifteen.
Around here, I think you just need the permit and that is more concerned with public safety as opposed to anything else.
No kidding. How do you make that mistake? If they were there to renovate, why would the demo equipment even be on site?
Around here (Massachusetts) some towns have come up with “anti-McMansion” regulations that limit what percentage of a house may be torn down in order to erect a new larger home. And so the sad dance begins: A new home is constructed as an “addition” to the old home. Occasionally it even encloses the old home. Conveniently, it is large enough that the old home falls below the percentage threshold. Once the occupancy permit has been obtained, application is made for a demolition permit for the old home. Net result: Much money expended for no noticeably different result.
Historical commissions will indeed attempt to restrict any changes to the exteriors of homes within their jurisdiction. Many tend to take the approach that if it can’t be seen from the street, then it is not regulated. However, others (notably Nantucket) consider it to be within their jurisdiction if it can be seen from any piece of public land or right-of-way.
Go the demolition permit route, if only to hold a piece of paper in your hands if something goes wrong or if someone tries to stop you. Notify the utility companies (especially gas, water and electric) to terminate their services; they can get quite testy if you do work on their side of the meter. You’ll be responsible for environmental mitigation, and that will include asbestos removal, dust control and any other air contaminants, sediment control and any other surface or ground water contaminants.
It sounds to me like the owner wanted the house gone, but due to covenant issues, found it much more convenient to schedule a “renovation” rather than a “demolition” and she told her brother “renovate that house until I can’t see it anymore.”
*** Ponder
I might have been too subtle. This guy was known for paying attention to zoning laws only when he suited him, and “accidentally” demolishing the house meant he didn’t have to waste time getting pesky permits. He also build a nice big house for the former mayor. He also went bankrupt every couple of years.
This was also a small town - the town clerk lived on the other side of his sister. We were on a dead end street, but we got plowed first. 
After we left there was some scandal about her getting paid extra for vacation or something. Sex was involved somehow. We also had the police chief try to blow up his wife in the car after being involved with drugs and his drunken neighbor.
Sorry if you thought I meant they screwed up. He did seem to know how to build houses, if not how to make money on them following the rules.
Property tax amounts are based on the land and any improvements. If you don’t tell the City you have demolished your building, you will still be taxed for the now demolished improvements, which are usually more than the land. The City will not doubt keep taxing you for the improvements until you get all the paperwork done. Easier, safer, and cheaper to do it right.
A google hit count number is not a good indication of anything. And maybe you didn’t mean to say this in your first post, but you did said that it would usually not be allowed. The “property line” adder was to indicate that it would be even harder to get a permit.
At any rate, I don’t believe it is correct that you will usually be unable to tear down your house, although I think most cities require some kind of permit. That can vary from easy to get to very difficult.
Based on my experience I believe this is the factual answer to this question. At this point I’m waiting on just one actual cite of a city’s code of ordinances that effectively says “your neighbors have the right to prevent you from demolishing the improvements on your property for any reason they choose.” Excluding historic districts or any other special overlays, anyway. I’m talking about a regular house in a regular good ol’ fashioned RS-1 Single Family Residential District.
At a bare minimum, if someone could at least say “yes this is how it works in my city, and that specific city is Townville, Anystate” then I’d at least have a chance at seeing if their code of ordinances is available online and verifying it for myself.
Yes, this is how it works in my city, and that city is Englewood, New Jersey. Clink on the link to “Demolition Requirements” and the following comes up:
REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION
Shut-off & Disconnect Letter–Hackensack Water Company
Shut-off & Disconnect Letter–PSE&G
Sanitary Sewer Disconnect–City Engineer (Ken Albert & Assoc.)
Area Extermination Letter–Baited
Asebestos Abatement Letter–Manifest
Notice to Adjoining Owners
For any structural changes on any buildings in my City, you have to make arrangements to go before the City Planning Board, notify the neighbors that you are doing so, and give them a change to air their opinions on the subject. The Board then decides whether to give you the go ahead or veto the idea. Vetos can be appealed.
In my professional experience working in construction, not contacting the government before doing the work is an expensive, time consumming and unnecessary experience. They have the final say on these things, and getting them angry is very bad for you.
As I noted above, I’m well aware that some cities require notice to adjoining owners. But there’s a very big difference between a requirement to notify them, and a requirement to get their approval. Nothing in those requirements requires me to get their approval, just to let them know that the bulldozers will be rolling next Thursday.
This is what I’m getting at. If there’s a public hearing about the demolition, those owners certainly have a right to show up and whine about it. But if I comply with the letter of those requirements, and the Planning Board says “well, geez, you complied with all the requirements of the law, but Ol’ Missus Sallie Mae over there says her cats really like that house and she doesn’t want you to knock it down, so your permit application is denied” then that’s certainly an appeal, and if things still don’t go my way despite having complied with every letter of the law, then that’s a lawsuit.
Oh believe me, you’re preaching to the choir on this point.
Who is saying that the house should be torn down without telling anyone? As far as I can tell, some people in this thread are pointing out that requirements are different from place to place.
A bit of a hijack, but suppose you have one of these issues (i.e. demolishing the old house will expose you to new building codes, and you don’t have enough room on the lot)? Can youbuild around the old house? I suspect that this is one way to get away with the grandfathering. I remember seeing an old restaurant-built around the original diner (which had been on the site).
Right. It’s a municipality issue, and part of my job is keeping tabs on various city’s building codes.
The OP asked “If I own a house, can I tear it down.” The answer is “Probably, but check with your city first and follow their instructions.”
While there are local laws to consider it’s easy enough to damage a building inside to make the building a danger and unliveable so you could tear it down. There is very little to prevent you in reality from tearing it down if you want to.
Here again, check with the City. In Englewood you have to notify the city and the neighbors of any structural changes on any buildings. If you are working with an old building, you still have to bring the building up to the present building codes. We bought a 20 year old building that had never been used and converted it into our new office building. We had to bring it up to Code, and could not move anything in until we had the Certificate of Occupancy.