NCEH Content

NCEH Home

About NCEH

Programs

Publications

NCEH en 

Españ ̄¬1⁄4/font>

NCEH Topics

Contact NCEH

Privacy Policy

NCEH Kids

Employment

For state and local 

health department 

assistance:CDC 

Emergency Response 

(24--hour assistance 

during emergencies) 

770-488-7100.

Toll-free telephone 

number for information 

and faxes on childhood 

lead poisoning, cruise 

ship inspection, 

cholesterol measurements, 

and list of publications: 

NCEH Health Line 

1-888-232-6789

Searchable Index | Strategic Plan | 2002 Fact Book

NCEH Fact Sheets | NCEH Brochures

 

 Chapter 1: Trends in Housing

Table of Contents

I. The History of Housing

II. Trends in Housing Inspection

III. Role of Health Agencies in Housing

IV. Summary

References

Members of countless communities throughout America are raising critical questions about the adequacy and effectiveness of local

housing code enforcement programs. These critics feel deep concern over the fact that 1966 found "some four million urban 

families living in homes of such disrepair as to violate decent housing standards.'' For this reason, they insist everything possible 

be done to guarantee that present and future inspection efforts lead to rapid and adequate upgrading of the substandard but 

salvageable housing in each community and that the neighborhoods be made more desirable places in which to live.

In order to meet these demands effectively, inspectors of housing and their supervisors should first acquaint themselves with the 

origin of public concern about housing problems; the past, present, and new approaches to housing code administration; the 

expanded role of the inspection function in the neighborhood improvement effort; and the general nature of their role and 

responsibilities.

I. The History of Housing

The first public policies on housing in this country were established during the Colonial period. Many of the early settlers built 

houses with wooden chimneys and thatched roofs which were the causes of frequent fires. Consequently, several of the colonies 

passed regulations prohibiting these. One of the first was the Plymouth Colony, which in 1626 passed a law stipulating that new 

houses should not be thatched but roofed with either board or pale and the like. In 1648 wooden or plastered chimneys were 

prohibited on new houses in New Amsterdam, and chimneys on existing houses were decreed to be inspected regularly. In 

Charlestown in 1740, following a disastrous fire. the general assembly passed an act that declared that all buildings should be of 

brick or stone, that all "tall'' wooded houses must be pulled down by 1745, and that the use of wood was to be confined to 

window frames. shutters, and to exterior work. This law was obviously unenforceable because, as we learn from other publications

during that period, more Charlestown houses were made of timber than of brick.

Social control over housing was exerted in other ways. Early settlers in Pennsylvania frequently dug caves out of the banks of the 

Delaware River and used these as primitive-type dwellings. Some of these shelters were still in use as late as 1687 when the 

Provincial Council ordered inhabitants to provide for themselves other habitations, in order to have the said caves or houses 

destroyed. In some New England communities, around the turn of the 18th century, standards were raised considerably higher by 

local ordinances. In East Greenwich, it had been the custom to build houses 14 feet square with posts 9 feet high; in 1727 the 

town voted that houses shall be built 18 feet square with posts 15 feet high with chimneys of stone or brick as before.

During the early days of this country, basic sanitation was very poor, primarily because outdoor privies served as the general 

means of sewage disposal. The principal problems created by the use of these privies involved their nearness to the streets and 

their easy accessibility to hogs and goats. In 1652, Boston prohibited the building of privies within 12 feet of the street. The Dutch 

of New Amsterdam in 1657 prohibited the throwing of rubbish and filth into the streets or canal and required the householders to
keep the streets clean and orderly.

After the early Colonial period we pass into an era of very rapid metropolitan growth along the eastern seashore. This growth was 

due largely to the immigration of people from Europe. Frequently these immigrants arrived without money or jobs and were 

forced to move in with friends or relatives. This led to severe overcrowding. Most of the information available pertains to New York 

City, because the situation there was worse than that in any other city in the country. It received the majority of the immigrants, 

many of whom were unable to move beyond the city. The most serious housing problems began in New York about ] 840 when 

the first tenements were built. These provided such substandard housing and such unhealthy, crowded living conditions that a 

social reform movement was imminent in New York.

During the early part of the 19th century, the only housing control authority was that vested in the fire wardens, whose objective 

was to prevent fires, and the health wardens, who were charged with the enforcement of general sanitation. In 1867, with the 

passing of the Tenement Housing Act, New York City began to face the problem of substandard housing. This law represented the 

first comprehensive legislation of its kind in this country. The principal features of the act are summarized as follows: for every 

room occupied for sleeping in a tenement or lodging house, if it does not communicate directly with the external air, a ventilating 

or transom window to the neighboring room or hall; a proper fire escape on every tenement or lodging house; the roof to be kept 

in repair and the stairs to have bannisters; water closets or privies - at least one to every twenty occupants for all such houses; 

after July 1, 1867, permits for occupancy of every cellar not previously occupied as a dwelling; cleansing of every lodging house 

to the satisfaction of the Board of Health, which is to have access at any time; reporting of all cases of infectious disease to the 

Board by the owner or his agent; inspection and, if necessary, disinfection of such houses; and vacation of buildings found to be 

out of repair. There were also regulations governing distances between buildings, heights of rooms, and dimensions of windows. 

The terms "tenement house," "lodging house," and "cellar" were defined.

Although this act had some beneficial influences on overcrowding, sewage disposal, lighting, and ventilation, it did not correct the 

evils of crowding on lots and did not provide for adequate ventilation for inner rooms. In 1879, a second tenement act, amending

the first, was passed adding restrictions on the amount of lot coverage and providing for a window opening of at least 12 square

feet in every room. Several attempts in 1882, 1884, and 1895 were made to amend this original act and provide for occupancy 

standards, but they were relatively unenforceable. While these numerous acts remedied only slightly the serious problems of the 

tenements, they did show the city's acknowledgment of the problems.' This public acknowledgment, however, was seldom shared 

by the owners of the tenements, or, in some cases, by the courts. The most famous case, in 1892, involved Trinity Church, at that 

time one of the largest owners of tenements in New York City. In the case, the City of New York accused Trinity Church of 

violating provisions of the Act of 1882 by failing to provide running water on every floor of its buildings. A district court levied a 

fine of $200 against the Church. which in turn appealed to the Court of Common Pleas to have the law set aside as 

unconstitutional. Incredibly the court agreed unanimously to uphold the landlord's position. stating there is no evidence nor can 

the court judicially know that the presence and distribution of water on the several floors will conduce to the health of the 

occupants . . . there is no necessity for legislative compulsion on a landlord to distribute water through the stories of his building; 

since if tenants require it, self-interest and the rivalry of competition are sufficient to secure it . . . now, if it be competent for the 

legislature to impose an expense upon a landlord in order that tenants be furnished with water in their rooms instead of in the 

yard or basement, at what point must this police power pause? . . . a conclusion contrary to the present decision would involve 

the essential principle of that species of socialism under the regime of which the individual disappears and is absorbed by a 

collective being called the 'state',a principle utterly repugnant to the spirit of our political system and necessarily fatal to our form 

of liberty. Fortunately, 3 years later, the city health department was granted an appeal from the court order, and eventually the 

constitutionality of the law was upheld.

Jacob A. Riis, Lawrence Veiller, and others did much during this period to champion the cause of better living conditions. Their

efforts resulted in the Tenement House Act of 1901, a milestone in housing and an extremely comprehensive document for its 

time. It began with concise definitions of certain terms that were to become important in court actions. It contained provisions for 

protection from fire, requiring that every tenement erected thereafter, and exceeding 60 feet in height, should be fireproof. In

addition, there were specific provisions regarding fire escapes on both new and existing houses. More light and ventilation were

required; coverage was restricted to not more than 70 percent on interior lots and 90 percent on corner lots. There were special

provisions governing rear yards, inner courts, and buildings on the same lot with the tenement house. At least one window of 

specified dimensions was required for every room, including the bathroom. Minimum size of rooms was specified as were certain 

characteristics for public halls. Significantly included were provisions concerning planning for the individual apartments in order to 

assure privacy. One of the most important provisions of the Tenement Act was the requirement for running water and water 

closets in each apartment in new tenement houses. Special attention was given to basements and cellars, the law requiring not 

only that they be damp proof but also that permits be obtained before they were occupied. One novel section of this act 
prohibited the use of any part of the building as a house of prostitution.

The basic principles and methodology established in the Tenement Act of 1901 still underlie much of the housing efforts in New 

York City today. Philadelphia, a city that can be compared with New York from the standpoint of age. was fortunate to have 

farsighted leaders in its early stage of development. Since 1909, with the establishment of the Philadelphia Housing Association, 

the city has had almost continual inspection and improvement.

Although Chicago is approximately two centuries younger than New York, it enacted housing legislation as early as 1889 and 

health legislation as early as 1881. Regulations on ventilation, light, drainage, and plumbing of dwellings were put into effect in 

1896. Many of the structures, however, were built of wood, were dilapidated. and constituted serious fire hazards.

Before 1892, all government involvement in housing was at a local level. In 1892, however, the Federal Government passed a 

resolution authorizing investigation of slum conditions in cities containing 200,000 or more inhabitants. At that time these 

included the cities of Baltimore, Boston, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, New Orleans, New 

York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San Francisco, and Washington. Much controversy surrounded the involvement of the 

Federal Government in housing. The Commissioner of Labor was forced to write an extensive legal opinion concerning the 

constitutionality of expenditures by the Federal Government in this area. The result was that Congress appropriated only $20,000

to cover the expenses of this project. The lack of funds limited actual investigations to Baltimore, Chicago, New York, and 

Philadelphia and did not cover housing conditions in toto within these cities. Facts obtained from the investigation were very 

broad, covering items such as the number of saloons per number of inhabitants, number of arrests, distribution of males and 

females, proportion of foreign-born inhabitants, degree of illiteracy, kinds of occupations of the residents, conditions of their 

health, their earnings, and the number of voters.

The 20th century started off rather poorly in the area of housing. No significant housing legislation was passed until 1929 when

the New York State legislature passed its Multiple Dwelling Law. This law continued the Tenement Act of New York City but 

replaced many provisions of the 1901 law with less strict requirements. Other cities and states followed New York State's example 

and permitted less strict requirements in their codes. This decreased what little emphasis there was in enforcement of building 

laws so that during the 1920's the cities had worked themselves into a very poor state of housing. Conditions in America declined 

to such a state by the 30's that President Franklin D. Roosevelt's shocking report to the people was "that one-third of the nation is 

ill-fed, ill-housed, and ill-clothed." With this the Federal Government launched itself extensively into the field of housing. The first 

Federal housing law was passed in 1934. One of the purposes of this act was to create a sounder mortgage system through the 

provision of a permanent system of government insurance for residential mortgages. The Federal Housing Administration was 

created to carry out the objectives of this act.

Many other Federal laws followed: the Veterans Administration becoming involved in guaranteeing of loans, the Home Loan Bank 

Board, Federal National Mortgage Association, Communities Facilities Administration, Public Housing Administration, and the Public 

Works Administration. With the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, the Federal Government entered the area of slum clearance and urban 

renewal, requiring one slum dwelling to be eliminated for every new unit built under the Housing Administration program. It was 

not until the passage of the Housing Act of 1949 that the Federal Government entered into slum clearance on a comprehensive 

basis.

The many responsibilities in housing administered by various agencies within the Federal Government proved to be unwieldy. 

Hence, in 1966 the Department of Housing and Urban Development was created to have prime responsibilities for the Federal 

Government's involvement in the field of housing.

II. Trends in Housing Inspection

Historically, local provisions for the inspection of housing have been completely inadequate. Usually the function has been split 

among two or more agencies, and the pertinent code sections have been spread among several local ordinances.

Following the work of C. E. A. Winslow, minimum code standards were made available and resulted in the passing of housing 

codes. This consolidation of housing requirements resulted in the field of housing inspection. Originally much of the work was 

devoted to complaint and referral inspections.
A Complaint and Referral Inspections

In most communities the housing inspectors are expected to center their efforts primarily on complaint and referral inspections.

This approach satisfies the persons making the complaints and referrals and helps improve some of the municipality's substandard

housing. However, it does little to bring about general improvements in any section of the community and actually constitutes an

inefficient way of using the available inspection manpower because the men have to spend so much time traveling from one area 

to another.

Many supervisors and inspectors realize this unsystematic method not only wastes time but also is an ineffective way of upgrading 

housing and curbing blight. First, on complaint inspections the inspectors are usually instructed to confine their investigations to 

the dwelling unit specifically involved unless the general conditions are so bad that an inspection of the entire building is deemed 

necessary. This means most complaint inspections are piecemeal and do not ordinarily bring entire dwellings up to code 

standards. Second, even though numerous complaints are unwarranted, inspectors are often given so many to check each day 

that they do not have time to inspect other obviously substandard houses in the vicinity of those complained about. Consequently, 

these "rotten apples" are left to spoil the block, while the house that has been improved stands alone.

Too often inspection agencies have found they did not have enough facts on hand about the extent and distribution of the 

substandard housing in their communities. Thus, they were unable to convince their superiors and the public about the 

inadequacy of complaint inspections as the major method of uncovering violations and checking residential blight in 

neighborhoods. It is the consensus of housing officials that area inspections are the most effective way of doing both.2 

Fortunately, in the 1960's, as one city after another began developing the comprehensive community renewal plans provided for 

in the Housing Act of 1959, this information finally started to become available. It verified the need for systematic inspections on 

a neighborhood basis. Congress further emphasized the importance of this new approach by including Section 301 in the Housing 

Act of 1964. This required all cities engaged in urban renewal to have comprehensive area inspection programs in operation by 

March 1967, and thereafter, in order to remain eligible for national renewal funds.

B Neighborhood Inspection Technique

The area or neighborhood inspection technique is a more recent type of inspection and one which begins to face up to the 

problems of saving neighborhoods from urban blight. While this is a step forward, it is merely one of several steps required if 

urban blight and its associated human suffering are to be minimized or controlled.

Throughout this manual the terms "area" or "neighborhood" are used interchangeably and refer to a readily identifiable portion of 

a community. Whether this consists of so many blocks, an entire neighborhood, or a section thereof, it should be of such size as

to permit the local code enforcement team to inspect and systematically effect minimum housing standards within a manageable 

time.

This means that area inspection programs involve systematic cellar-to-roof, house-to-house, block-to-block inspections of all 

properties within the specific area and include all the follow-up work required to bring the substandard housing up to code 

standards within a reasonable period. By putting major emphasis on this type effort instead of on the complaint-oriented 

approach, blight is checked and an overall upgrading of residential sections is achieved in one portion of a community after 

another. Thus, systematic area inspection is both a longer lasting and a much more effective method of improving housing and 

stabilizing property values than the traditional complaint method.

Usually a municipality combines its area work with some complaint and referral inspections. This is not objectionable so long as

major emphasis is given to the area programs, and the inspectors move through the various sections of town systematically. Only 

in this way can a community's housing inspection program contribute adequately to the municipal efforts to upgrade all 

substandard housing and stem the deterioration of individual homes and neighborhoods. A percentage of the inspection force 

should, however, be primarily assigned to complaint and referral work so that prompt action can be taken on all cases in which 

the problems are too severe to await action in connection with the area inspections.

While the area-wide or neighborhood inspections will correct violations of the housing code, this is all they will accomplish. Once 

these neighborhoods are brought up to standard, inspectors will move on to other neighborhoods but be forced to return at a later 

time and repeat the process.
If a neighborhood has declined to the extent that there is a large amount of housing violations, then it is obvious that something 

or someone or both have caused the neighborhood to deteriorate. Any effort that does not also eliminate the cause for 

deterioration can only be a token effort and frequently a wasted effort. Unless a housing program evaluates the total 

neighborhood for both housing violations and for environmental stresses within the neighborhood that may have caused the 

deterioration of the housing, then the inspectional effort has not been complete.

What then are these "environmental stresses"? Environmental stresses are the elements within a neighborhood that influence the 

physical, mental, and emotional well-being of the occupants. They include items such as noise, glare, excessive land covering, 

nonresidential land uses, and extensive traffic problems. If a housing program is to be complete, these stresses must be identified 

and assessed. Then efforts must be made in conjunction with other departments within the city to program capital improvement 

budgets to alleviate or minimize these stresses.

These two types of inspection are the field involvement of the housing inspector. He must inspect not only the houses for 

violations but also the neighborhoods for environmental stresses. This will provide him with knowledge of physical conditions 

within the neighborhood. As mentioned previously, however, this is not the whole problem in most neighborhoods. Generally, the 

very difficult problem of the human element is involved. Many buildings and neighborhoods deteriorate because of apathy on the 

part of the neighborhood inhabitants. Efforts must be made to motivate the slum dweller to work towards a better living 

environment. Experience by the Public Health Service (PHS) in motivational training has shown it to be very effective in raising

the living standards of neighborhood populations.

In summary then, a housing inspection effort should be made up of three parts: First, a neighborhood or area-wide housing 

inspection procedure; second, a neighborhood analysis procedure to identify, assess, and eventually control environmental 

stresses; and third, a program of motivational training for slum dwellers to raise the living standards of the neighborhood .

III. Role of Health Agencies in Housing

Up until the end of World War II, most local housing hygiene programs were carried on by the health departments. After WW II! 

health agencies began to drift away from the field of housing hygiene. This gap was filled by a variety of other city agencies 

including building departments, police departments, fire departments. and more recently created departments of licenses and 

inspections. Regardless which department administers the housing code, the health department, if it is to live up to its 

responsibilities of protecting the public health, must have an involvement in housing. A general statement of PHS policy is that the 

basic responsibility of health agencies with regard to housing is to see to it that local and state governments take action to ensure 

that all occupied housing meets minimum public health standards. This basic responsibility falls upon federal, state. and local 

health agencies alike.

Several kinds of governmental action are required. These include: (I) adoption of minimum health standards in housing, (2) 

conduct of a program to achieve and maintain these standards, (3) periodic evaluation of the standards to ensure their current 

adequacy, and (4) monitoring of the standards enforcement effort to guarantee that public health values are provided. Health 

agencies, in order to meet their responsibilities, must accept the role of either stimulating or carrying out these four required 

kinds of governmental action.

In communities that have neither standards nor program, the health agency has the responsibility of initiating both by stimulating 

the required governmental action. Stimulation may be direct, through elected or appointed officials, or indirect, by generating 

public support that will trigger official action.

IV. Summary

Several basic thoughts are contained in this chapter.

A Housing is an old, well-established but often overlooked topic within this country. Indications are, however, that the broad field 

of housing will receive much more attention from the policy makers throughout the country within the coming years.

B No single agency can eliminate urban blight. A concentrated effort of all city departments, private concerns, and political bodies 
must be focused on small sections (neighborhoods) to minimize or control urban blight and its associated human sufferings.

C A housing effort cannot be successful if it is merely an inspection of houses for code compliance. There must also be a united

effort to eliminate environmental stresses within the neighborhood and instill motivation in slum dwellers to desire and work 

towards improving their environment.

REFERENCES 

President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Demonstration Cities" message to Congress, January 26, 1966.

"Enforcement of Housing Codes," Harvard Law Review, Vol. 78. No. 4, Feb. 1965, p. 807.

Table of Contents | Acknowledgements | Foreword | Chapter1 | Chapter 2

Chapter 3 | Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6 | Chapter 7

Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11

 

 

Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Global Health Office

Asthma Health Studies

Division of Laboratory Sciences Mold

Emergency and Environmental Health 

Services

Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children

Environmental Hazards and Health 

Effects

Vessel Sanitation - Sanitary Inspection of 

International Cruise Ships

NCEH Home| Programs | Publications | Contact Us | Privacy | About NCEH

CDC Home | CDC Search | Health Topics A-Z

This page last reviewed June 11, 2002 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Center for Environmental Health