Constitutional – City enjoined from demolishing allegedly unsafe buildings

Where the City of Hampton began demolishing apartment buildings it contended were in danger of failing, they were enjoined from continuing their conduct. The apartments’ owner showed it was likely to succeed on its claims.

Background

In May 2026, Harbor View VA, LLC acquired real property in Hampton, Virginia. The property includes nine condemned apartment buildings. Prior to taking title, Harbor View engaged a structural engineer to prepare a report about the property. The report concluded that “the buildings [could] be structurally rehabilitated with little effort” and that it would cost less to repair the damage than to demolish the structures and rebuild.
On June 24, 2026, the City sent Harbor View a memorandum alleging that the buildings on the property “constitute and imminent danger to life and public safety” and were subject to emergency demolition. As of July 10, 2026, it appeared that the city had torn down one of the garage buildings at the property.
On July 12, 2026, Harbor View filed a complaint and an initial motion for a temporary restraining order, or TRO, and a preliminary injunction. The court denied the motion, based upon a pleading error that affected the likelihood of success on the merits. Harbor View has now filed a renewed motion for a TRO.

Likelihood of success

Under Virginia law, “[t]he term ‘nuisance’ includes, but is not limited to . . . unsafe, dangerous, or unsanitary . . . buildings  or structures which constitute a menace to the health and safety of the occupants thereof or the public.” Based on the reasoning outlined in the city’s memorandum, it is clear that the city considers the property “unsafe” and “dangerous.”

But the city’s concerns are exclusively related to the risk of structural collapse, not with the buildings’ habitability, nor with issues related to mold or sanitation. And because the buildings are vacant, the properties could only be a nuisance if they “constitute a menace to the health and safety of . . . the public.”
Harbor View adequately demonstrates that the public is not affected by the conditions identified in the city’s memorandum. First, “the property [is] secured,” and it is “patrolled daily” to prevent “trespass or intrusion.” Of course, a full-scale collapse could affect members of the public farther away from the property.

But the engineer’s report—completed less than a month before the city’s decision—persuasively explains that because the structural damage is to internal, non-load-bearing walls, there is “no immediate concern” that the exterior of the building will collapse. And Harbor View shows that the city likely has no more information about the condition of the property than is included in the engineers’ report, from which it might have reasonably developed a different view.

The city’s cited fear about danger to “emergency response personnel” likewise does not satisfy Va. Code § 15.2-900. There is no indication that emergency responders would actually “be required to enter, inspect, secure, or operate near the structure during the course of their duties,” because the buildings are vacant and the public is excluded. For these reasons, Harbor View demonstrates that it is likely to succeed on its claim for declaratory judgment that the property is not a nuisance under Virginia law.

As the title holder, Harbor View has a constitutionally protected interest in the property. Defendant Kimberly Mikel clearly acted under color of state law when she ordered that “all structures located on [the property] be demolished and removed,” pursuant to the Virginia Property and Maintenance Code.
And designating a building ‘unsafe’ requires notice that complies with § 106.3, including the requirement to “indicate the right of appeal by referencing the appeals section of [the building] code.” The notice provided to Harbor View included no reference to the right to appeal.

Irreparable harm

While a jury could conceivably award damages to compensate Harbor View for the costs of demolition, cleanup, new planning, reconstruction and lost profits associated with all of those things, proving those damages would require Harbor View to front all of those costs, which the evidence at this stage demonstrates cannot happen.

Remaining factors

Harbor View establishes that demolition of the buildings on its property would harm its interests both in the short term (because it would cost more to rebuild than to repair the structures) and in the long term (because the city could withhold permits for redevelopment. The city has no comparable interest in tearing the buildings down. Because it finds that the city has no significant interest in demolishing the buildings immediately, the court finds that nominal security is appropriate.

Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order granted.

Harbor View VA, LLC v. City of Hampton, Case No. 4:26-cv-111, July 20, 2026. EDVA at Newport News (Walker). VLW 026-3-306. 10 pp.

Full-Text Opinion