Addressing vacant and abandoned properties
Last Revised: September 30, 2025
- Issue Areas
- Housing and community development
- Outcomes
- Supportive neighborhoods
Strategy overview
Vacancy and abandonment impact individual and community wellbeing: Vacant and abandoned properties can negatively impact residents’ health. Living near substandard housing or vacant lots has been linked to increased stress, higher blood lead levels, poorer mental health, among other negative outcomes. Systemic vacancy and abandonment impacts broader community outcomes, as well. Increased crime, reduced property values, and decreased property tax revenue are also associated with high levels of vacancy and abandonment. (For more on the impacts of systemic vacancy, see resources from the Center for Community Progress.)
Tracking and reducing existing vacancy and abandonment: To understand the location and scale of vacancy and abandonment, local jurisdictions may use field observations and administrative data to inventory and rate the condition of properties. Proactive code enforcement – in which areas with problem properties are routinely inspected -- can help communities identify or prevent further property deterioration. As vacant properties are identified, local governments typically push for property repair and maintenance by enforcing their property maintenance or nuisance abatement codes. In cases where this is ineffective, or the property has been abandoned, jurisdictions may leverage the powers of local land bank authorities to take ownership of a property, generally through an existing property tax foreclosure process. With control over the property, a jurisdiction has more power to reposition it for a new use that will benefit the community.
Leveraging upstream policies to prevent new problem properties: This resource is focused on identifying and mitigating existing vacant and abandoned properties, but these strategies should be adopted in concert with broader housing and community development practices aimed at preventing vacancy and abandonment. Key preventative measures may include: proactive rental inspection and licensing, home repair and rehabilitation resources, programs to support aging in place, heirs’ property resolution and prevention, among others. To learn more about these and related policies, see the Economic Mobility Catalog’s Housing stability and displacement prevention and Maintaining safe and healthy housing strategy guides.
There is strong evidence linking vacant and abandoned properties to negative health outcomes, reduced property values, and increased crime in surrounding areas. In terms of interventions to address these impacts, the “cleaning and greening” of vacant lots has among the strongest evidence bases. There is also moderate empirical evidence for land banks as a strategy for reducing the negative impacts of vacant and abandoned properties. The evidence base for the demolition of abandoned structures is more mixed, with some evidence that demolitions may increase nearby property values, but inconsistent evidence for impacts on crime and health. Other approaches in this space – such as vacant property inventories and strategic code enforcement – are accepted as best practices by experts but have rarely been subject to rigorous empirical evaluation.
A 2021 systematic review found that “greening” vacant lots was generally associated with improved health outcomes for residents.
A 2018 randomized controlled trial conducted in Philadelphia (PA) found that “greening” and mowing and trash cleanup interventions reduced the incidence of shootings by 6.8 and 9.2 percent, respectively.
A 2018 randomized controlled trial conducted in Philadelphia (PA) found that “cleaning and greening” (i.e., removal of trash and debris and planting grass and trees) of vacant lots reduced both police-reported and residents’ perceptions of crime.
A 2025 impact evaluation conducted in Flint (MI) found that community engaged environmental design strategies – like the area land bank’s Clean and Green program – were associated with reduced violent crime and reduced violent firearm crime.
A 2023 impact evaluation conducted in Flint (MI) found that land bank ownership of properties was associated with reductions in serious, violent, and firearm-involved crime.
A 2022 research synthesis identified some evidence for land banking as a strategy for addressing the negative impacts of blighted properties.
A 2021 impact evaluation of Rehabbed and Ready in Detroit (MI) found that median sale prices and the proportion of homes purchased with a mortgage grew by 11.5 and 5.6 percent per year, respectively, in neighborhoods participating in the program.
A 2013 impact evaluation of property demolitions in Cleveland (OH) found that demolitions were associated with reduced rates of mortgage foreclosure and increased real estate equity in nearby properties. However, the impact on real estate equity was primarily observed in moderately and highly functioning submarkets.
A 2014 impact evaluation of strategic code enforcement legislation in Philadelphia (PA) found that neighborhoods that received concentrated code enforcement saw higher property sale prices and lower rates of tax delinquency when compared to similar neighborhoods that did not receive concentrated enforcement.
Before making investments in this strategy, city and county leaders should ensure it addresses local needs.
The Urban Institute has developed an indicator framework to help local leaders assess conditions related to upward mobility, identify barriers, and guide investments to address these challenges. These indicator frameworks can serve as a starting point for self-assessment, not as a comprehensive evaluation, and should be complemented by other forms of local knowledge.
The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.
Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in addressing vacant or abandoned properties. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in these interventions could help, examine the following:
Safety from crime: Reported property crimes per 100,000 people and reported violent crimes per 100,000 people. These data are available from the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ Uniform Crime Reporting Program.
Economic inclusion: Share of people experiencing poverty who live in high-poverty neighborhoods. These data are available in the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Housing affordability: Ratio of affordable and available housing units to households with low, very low, and extremely low income levels. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Local Income Bands.
Housing stability: Number and share of public-school children who are ever homeless during the school year. These data are collected by local public school districts.
Opportunities for wealth-building: Ratio of the share of a community’s housing wealth held by a racial or ethnic group to the share of households of the same group. These data are available from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey.
Note: The market conditions in a community will impact which of the above indicators are most useful. For example, a jurisdiction with extremely high levels of vacancy may find measures of housing stability more relevant than housing affordability.
Conduct regular property condition inventories: Jurisdictions should conduct regular inventories to assess the condition of properties. Information on property conditions can help jurisdictions identify properties that may be vacant or abandoned or at risk of becoming vacant or abandoned. Publicly available data – like utility shutoff and tax delinquency data – can serve as a starting point for understanding where vacancy and abandonment is concentrated. However, property inventories will be most useful when informed by in-person field observations. Regular field observations allow local governments to see how property conditions at the parcel level change over time. In cases where regular field observations are impractical for a local government to conduct in-house, experts recommend recruiting community members to survey properties. This approach can have the added benefit of strengthening ties between local government and residents.
Proactively inventory, inspect and enforce housing and property maintenance codes: Enforcing a jurisdiction’s housing code can be an effective tool to ensure safe and healthy rental housing and prevent further property deterioration and eventual vacancy. Property maintenance codes, in turn, can be used to address vacant rental and owner-occupied properties that are showing signs of deterioration (e.g., tall grass, illegal dumping). Traditionally, both housing and property maintenance code enforcement have been reactive, relying on reports of violations to trigger investigations. Experts recommend that jurisdictions shift to a proactive model for housing code enforcement, in which all rental housing periodically undergoes full inspections (often every 2-4 years). When resources are limited, jurisdictions may adopt a different inspection regimen, such as conducting inspections more frequently when a property has a history of code violations or randomizing inspections. At the same time, jurisdictions should enforce their property maintenance codes for all housing via regular, lighter-touch exterior maintenance inspections (e.g., drive by visual inspections by code enforcement officers). For more information, see ChangeLab Solutions’ Guide to Proactive Rental Inspections, the Center for Community Progress’ Reevaluating Code Enforcement, and Results for America’s case study on PRI in Syracuse (NY).
Develop alternatives to abate vacant and abandoned properties and charge owners for costs: When standard code enforcement actions fail to persuade a property owner to address the vacant and abandoned property, jurisdictions need systems to take action to remediate the issues and assess the owner for the resulting costs. Generally, nuisance abatement laws provide jurisdictions with the authority to address hazardous or unhealthy property conditions. Placing the cost of remediation efforts on the property tax bill (in rem enforcement) is often the best approach, as it can be effective against speculators, who need to stay current on their taxes to retain the property as an investment. While less common, receivership is another legal mechanism that jurisdictions can use in cases where standard code enforcement actions have been insufficient. Receivership allows courts to temporarily appoint a third-party "receiver" to manage and address problems with a property, with the owner then responsible for compensating the receiver for these costs. This approach can be difficult to scale, however, as its success relies on securing a willing and reliable receiver.
Selecting a process to transfer ownership of vacant properties: When code enforcement is insufficient in remedying unsafe conditions on a vacant or abandoned property, local jurisdictions need to identify a legal mechanism to gain public control of the property. The mechanisms available to local governments vary state-by-state. However, property tax foreclosure is the most common approach, as it uses an existing legal process and therefore tends to be most efficient (for more, see Center for Community Progress’ resource). When this approach is not feasible, jurisdictions may use other legal mechanisms to gain control over a property, such as code lien foreclosures, receivership, and abandonment procedures. Regardless of method, experts advise using a structure that allows government or allied community-based organizations to gain control over the property, so it can be responsibly repositioned. Once a vacant property has completed the legal process and fully transferred to a public entity, jurisdictions may prioritize a sale to CBOs or mission-driven developers through a first look program, or by restricting eligible buyer types and end uses.
Establishing an entity to hold and reposition properties: City and county governments may own properties, but it is a better practice to transfer them to an entity with the expertise and infrastructure to maintain and reposition them for a new use. In states with land bank enabling legislation, this role is typically filled by a land bank, which cities or counties may charter to address vacant properties (for more, see Center for Community Progress’ resource). That said, other structures – including economic development authorities, community development corporations, and social enterprises – have proven effective.
Using urban greening strategies for vacant properties with little or no market value: Regardless of their legal structure, organizations that assume control of vacant properties should focus on being good stewards of those properties and preparing them for reuse in a way that contributes to broader community goals. A common and effective approach is “cleaning and greening” of properties, which often includes basic maintenance like removing trash, mowing grass, and installing landscaping. For examples of this work, see the Genesee County Land Bank Authority’s Clean and Green Program, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society’s LandCare Program, and Detroit Future City’s Land Use and Sustainability Program.
Providing “offramps” as part of the code enforcement process: When traditional, reactive code enforcement is conducted without the proper guardrails, it can catalyze the displacement of low-income households who are unable to maintain their property. To reduce this risk, experts advise that jurisdictions shift to a cooperative compliance or strategic code enforcement model, which pairs punitive enforcement mechanisms with information, education, and financial resources. This approach aims to support willing property owners in addressing code violations before applying punitive measures that may precipitate displacement. Strategies that can help low-income households address violations include waiving fines and fees associated with violations, providing loans and grants for home repairs, investing in “aging in place” programming, among others (for more, see pages 42-46 of Center for Community Progress’ resource).
Leveraging maintenance work to create economic opportunity for residents: When a government or non-profit agency, such as a land bank authority, is stewarding vacant and abandoned properties, it must conduct or contract externally for maintenance services, like demolition, mowing, tree planting, and boarding. This work – whether conducted in-house or outsourced – can create workforce training and employment opportunities for residents. Examples of this approach include the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society’s Workforce Development Programs and Groundwork Rhode Island’s Adult Job Training program. Relatedly, adopting inclusive procurement practices can create greater opportunity for underrepresented businesses to secure contracts for outsourced maintenance work. For more on inclusive procurement practices, see the Economic Mobility Catalog’s inclusive procurement strategy guide.
Leveraging properties to meet community goals: When land banks or other public or non-profit entities are repositioning properties for sale, they should generally consider broader community development goals instead of solely focusing on maximizing the property’s sale price. By selling a property below market value, jurisdictions can support the creation of affordable rental or for-purchase homes while reducing the need for direct subsidy. This can be an important tactic to increase housing stability and/or support wealth building opportunities for low-income households. For an example, see the Economic Mobility Catalog’s case study on the Genesee County Land Bank Authority.
Neighborhood residents: Residents may advise when a jurisdiction sets priorities for where resources to address vacant and abandoned properties are concentrated (e.g., see Genesee County Land Bank Authority’s use of resident survey responses to inform demolition planning). Similarly, they may help local leaders set priorities to guide how properties are ultimately sold for reuse. Residents can also be engaged to support data collection for vacant property inventories (e.g., as in Genesee County) and to staff community-based property maintenance programs.
Housing and building department: Municipal housing and building departments generally administer housing inspection and code enforcement activities. They may be leaders when shifting to a proactive code enforcement model.
Community development department: Municipal community development departments generally administer key federal funding streams (e.g., Community Development Block Grants) that can be leveraged to support programs to prevent or address vacancy and abandonment.
Planning department: Local planning departments often lead efforts to develop neighborhood or city-wide plans. These planning processes create an opportunity to solicit deeper community feedback on housing and community development needs. Ultimately, these plans can inform policy decisions, like how remediation of vacant and abandoned properties is prioritized or the approach used when repositioning properties for new uses.
Land bank authority: Land banks are well positioned to hold and reposition properties for new uses. Generally, land banks have advantages over other government entities in terms of holding and selling properties (e.g., fewer restrictions on the sale of properties).
Community-based organizations: CBOs, whether community development corporations or other non-profit entities, can facilitate community engagement around vacant and abandoned property strategies. Higher-capacity community development CBOs may also be able to assume ownership of properties and drive development in a way that aligns with community priorities. For an example of the latter, see the Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation.
State government agencies: State-level land bank authorities, environmental departments and housing development authorities are common sources for funding for demolitions, hazard remediation, and affordable housing projects.
Financial institutions: Lenders play a key role in providing financing for housing rehabilitation. Jurisdictions with weaker markets may need to partner with financial institutions (often local banks or CDFIs) to ensure rehabilitation projects can access financing (e.g., providing a loan loss reserve to enable lending for “riskier” projects). For an example of a strong CDFI partner, see Chicago’s Community Investment Corporation.
Facilitate cross-agency and cross-sector collaboration: Addressing vacant and abandoned properties requires action by a broad range of government and non-profit stakeholders. Each of these stakeholders may have different missions, regulatory requirements, or funding constraints. Creating a formal working group to set shared objectives can induce greater collaboration. For examples, see Memphis’ (TN) Blight Elimination Steering Team and Cleveland’s (OH) Vacant and Abandoned Property Action Council, which developed processes to coordinate around both specific problem properties and broader strategic priorities.
Using data to tailor approach based on neighborhood conditions: Housing market conditions may vary considerably across neighborhoods in the same jurisdiction. Experts recommend that communities use indicators of market strength (e.g., home sale prices, sales to mortgage ratio, building permit activity) to classify neighborhoods by market conditions. These typologies can help communities understand how to channel their resources in a way that meets their goals. For example, market typologies can help a jurisdiction identify “tipping point” neighborhoods with moderate strength markets, where public investments might stabilize conditions. For more information on tailoring policy design based on property and neighborhood characteristics, see Local Housing Solutions' resource and Center for Community Progress’ resource.
Identifying meaningful resident engagement opportunities: In many U.S. cities, urban renewal efforts precipitated current vacancy and abandonment issues. As a result, public engagement is vital to building trust between the public and non-profit agencies working to address vacancy and abandonment and support the residents impacted by it. Common ways of engaging residents include: hiring residents for property cleanup and maintenance work crews, empowering residents to report on the conditions of properties, and establishing resident advisory boards for land banks. Experts note that meaningful resident engagement can not only provide public and non-profit stakeholders with valuable information and capacity, but can also strengthen the “civic infrastructure” and “sense of ownership” in neighborhoods. For examples of high-quality public engagement, see the City of Syracuse and the Center for Justice Innovation’s Community Ambassador Program and Economic Mobility Catalog’s case study on the Genesee County Land Bank Authority.
Programmatic data: Tracking the number and location of interventions – like trash removal, mowing, and boarding of buildings – allows jurisdictions to demonstrate impact by linking interventions to subsequent positive changes in the community.
Sale outcomes: When jurisdictions are acquiring and then selling vacant and abandoned properties, information on the number of properties sold and to whom (e.g., resident versus non-resident, first-time homeowner versus current property owner) can help communities understand whether property disposition is meeting broader community goals. Monitoring data on property condition and tax delinquency over time can also help jurisdictions understand whether buyers are successfully maintaining properties.
Secondary neighborhood outcomes: Jurisdictions may have interest in tracking second order outcomes of their work to reduce the number of vacant and abandoned properties. Examples of these metrics include resident perceptions of safety, crime statistics, public health data, property values, and property condition data from property inventories.
Indicators of market strength: Jurisdictions may use various indicators of housing market strength to understand whether interventions are stabilizing a neighborhood. The same metrics may also be used to classify a community’s neighborhoods into typologies to better target resources and/or tailor interventions to submarkets. Common indicators include: home sale prices, sales to mortgage ratio, household change, tax delinquency rates, and building permit activity. For more, see the Reinvestment Fund’s Market Value Analysis and the Center for Community Progress’ resource.
Resources
Evidence-based examples
|
|
Outcome Area |
This ranking reflects how these approaches are scored in one of the major government- or philanthropy-led clearinghouse resources. For more: https://catalog.results4americ... |
|---|---|---|
|
Plots of land owned by local governments, non-profits, or other groups that are dedicated as a gardening space for public use on a membership basis
|
Supportive neighborhoods Stable and healthy families |
|
|
Community-owned or public entities that acquire troubled properties and transform them into community assets
|
Supportive neighborhoods |
|
|
Love Your Block (LYB) is a grant program dedicated to supporting community-led neighborhood revitalization projects.
|
Supportive neighborhoods |
|
Contributors
Sally Martin-O’Toole
Sally Martin-O’Toole is the Director of Building and Housing for the City of Cleveland, Ohio. As Director, she supervises and manages the City’s Code Enforcement, Construction Permitting, and Records Administration Divisions.
Previously, she was the Housing Director for the City of South Euclid, Ohio. Martin-O’Toole holds a Bachelor of Science from the University of Florida.
Danielle Lewinski
Danielle Lewinski is the Chief Program Officer at the Center for Community Progress. As an impact-oriented expert in urban revitalization, she ensures the organization’s programs strategically inform and inspire vacant property policy and practice change.
Pulling from her deep experience in land banks, property tax, code enforcement, and reuse strategies, Lewinski aligns and evaluates activities across programs to achieve local impact while moving the national field of practice.
Lewinski earned her Master of Urban and Regional Planning and Graduate Certificate in Real Estate Development from the University of Michigan and a Bachelor of Arts in African and African American Studies from Mount Holyoke College.
Christina Kelly, M.S., M.U.P.
Christina Kelly is the Director of Planning and Neighborhood Revitalization at the Genesee County Land Bank Authority (GCLBA) in Flint, Michigan. Since 2004, she has helped the Authority secure and manage over $230 million in state, federal, and foundation grants to address vacancy and abandonment. In her role, she leads initiatives to demolish blighted structures, renovate homes, remediate and redevelop brownfields, and engage residents in maintaining and revitalizing vacant properties.
Ms. Kelly holds a Master of Science in Environmental Policy and a Master of Urban Planning from the University of Michigan. She earned dual Bachelor of Arts degrees in Political Science and Spanish from DePauw University.
Joe Schilling
Joe Schilling is a Senior Policy and Research Associate at the Urban Institute. As a strategic advisor, policy expert, and practitioner on reclaiming vacant properties, brownfields redevelopment, land use/zoning, municipal innovation and capacity building, Schilling guides public officials, philanthropy, and community leaders in the co-design and implementation of cross sector, cross agency initiatives that advance affordable, safe and healthy housing; climate resilient development; urban regeneration and neighborhood revitalization. A national expert in municipal code enforcement, Schilling co-wrote Strategic Code Enforcement (2025), the definitive guidebook on code enforcement for policymakers, practitioners and their municipal attorneys, and co-leads the Strategic Code Enforcement Management Academy (SCEMA). Schilling previously served as a deputy city attorney for his hometown of San Diego, a California legislative fellow, Director of Community and Economic Development for ICMA, and a Research Professor of Urban Planning at Virginia Tech’s Northern Virginia region. Joe holds a Master of Environmental Law (LL.M.) from George Washington University and a J.D. from UC Law at San Francisco.