Chapter 1—Housing History and Purpose

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Preurban Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Ephemeral Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Episodic Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Periodic Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-1

Seasonal Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Semipermanent Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Permanent Dwellings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Urbanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-2

Trends in Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-7

Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-7

Figure 1.1. Conditions in the Tenements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-3

Figure 1.2. Levittown, New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-6

Chapter 2—Basic Principles of Healthy Housing 

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1

Fundamental Physiologic Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1

Fundamental Psychologic Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

Protection Against Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-3

Protection Against Injury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5

Protection Against Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-6

Fire Extinguishers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

Protection Against Toxic Gases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-9

Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-11

Figure 2.1. Circa 1890 Icebox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5

Figure 2.2. Smoke Alarm Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-8

Chapter 3—Housing Regulations

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1

Zoning, Housing Codes, and Building Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2

Zoning and Zoning Ordinances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3

Exceptions to the Zoning Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5

Housing Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6

Building Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-12

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-12

Additional Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13

Figure 3.1. Example of a Floor Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5

Figure 3.2. Example of an Angle of Light Obstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 1

Contents
“Safe, affordable housing is a basic necessity for every family.

Without a decent place to live, people cannot be productive

members of society, children cannot learn and families

cannot thrive.” 

Tracy Kaufman, Research Associate

National Low Income Housing Coalition/

Low Income Housing Information Service

http://www.habitat.org/how/poverty.html; 2003

Introduction

The term “shelter,” which is often used to define housing,

has a strong connection to the ultimate purpose of

housing throughout the world. The mental image of a

shelter is of a safe, secure place that provides both privacy

and protection from the elements and the temperature

extremes of the outside world. 

This vision of shelter, however, is complex. The

earthquake in Bam, Iran, before dawn on December 26,

2003, killed in excess of 30,000 people, most of whom

were sleeping in their homes. Although the homes were

made of the most simple construction materials, many

were well over a thousand years old. Living in a home

where generation after generation had been raised should

provide an enormous sense of security. Nevertheless, the

world press has repeatedly implied that the construction

of these homes destined this disaster. The homes in Iran

were constructed of sun-dried mud-brick and mud. 

We should think of our homes as a legacy to future

generations and consider the negative environmental

effects of building them to serve only one or two

generations before razing or reconstructing them. Homes

should be built for sustainability and for ease in future

modification. We need to learn the lessons of the

earthquake in Iran, as well as the 2003 heat wave in

France that killed in excess of 15,000 people because of

the lack of climate control systems in their homes. We

must use our experience, history, and knowledge of both

engineering and human health needs to construct

housing that meets the need for privacy, comfort,

recreation, and health maintenance.

Health, home construction, and home maintenance are

inseparable because of their overlapping goals. Many

highly trained individuals must work together to achieve

quality, safe, and healthy housing. Contractors, builders,

code inspectors, housing inspectors, environmental health

officers, injury control specialists, and epidemiologists all

are indispensable to achieving the goal of the best

housing in the world for U.S. citizens. This goal is the

basis for the collaboration of the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the

Centers for Disease and Control and Prevention (CDC). 

Preurban Housing

Early dwelling designs were probably the result of cultural,

socioeconomic, and physical forces intrinsic to the

environment of their inhabitants. The housing similarities

among civilizations separated by vast distances may have

been a result of a shared heritage, common influences,

or chance. 

Caves were accepted as dwellings, perhaps because they

were ready made and required little or no construction.

However, in areas with no caves, simple shelters were

constructed and adapted to the availability of resources

and the needs of the population. Classification systems

have been developed to demonstrate how dwelling types

evolved in preurban indigenous settings [1].

Ephemeral Dwellings

Ephemeral dwellings, also known as transient dwellings,

were typical of nomadic peoples. The African bushmen

and Australia’s aborigines are examples of societies whose

existence depends on an economy of hunting and food

gathering in its simple form. Habitation of an ephemeral

dwelling is generally a matter of days. 

Episodic Dwellings

Episodic housing is exemplified by the Inuit igloo, the

tents of the Tungus of eastern Siberia, and the very

similar tents of the Lapps of northern Europe. These

groups are more sophisticated than those living in

ephemeral dwellings, tend to be more skilled in hunting

or fishing, inhabit a dwelling for a period of weeks, and

have a greater effect on the environment. These groups

also construct communal housing and often practice

slash-and-burn cultivation, which is the least productive

use of cropland and has a greater environmental impact

than the hunting and gathering of ephemeral dwellers. 

Periodic Dwellings

Periodic dwellings are also defined as regular temporary

dwellings used by nomadic tribal societies living in a

Chapter 1: Housing History and Purpose

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 1-1
pastoral economy. This type of housing is reflected in the

yurt used by the Mongolian and Kirgizian groups and the

Bedouins of North Africa and western Asia. These groups’

dwellings essentially demonstrate the next step in the

evolution of housing, which is linked to societal

development. Pastoral nomads are distinguished from

people living in episodic dwellings by their homogenous

cultures and the beginnings of political organization.

Their environmental impact increases with their increased

dependence on agriculture rather than livestock.

Seasonal Dwellings

Schoenauer [1] describes seasonal dwellings as reflective of

societies that are tribal in nature, seminomadic, and based

on agricultural pursuits that are both pastoral and

marginal. Housing used by seminomads for several

months or for a season can be considered semisedentary

and reflective of the advancement of the concept of

property, which is lacking in the preceding societies. This

concept of property is primarily of communal property, as

opposed to individual or personal property. This type of

housing is found in diverse environmental conditions and is

demonstrated in North America by the hogans and armadas

of the Navajo Indians. Similar housing can be found in

Tanzania (Barabaig) and in Kenya and Tanzania (Masai).

Semipermanent Dwellings

According to Schoenauer [1], sedentary folk societies or

hoe peasants practicing subsistence agriculture by

cultivating staple crops use semipermanent dwellings.

These groups tend to live in their dwellings various amounts

of time, usually years, as defined by their crop yields. When

land needs to lie fallow, they move to more fertile areas.

Groups in the Americas that used semipermanent

dwellings included the Mayans with their oval houses and

the Hopi, Zuni, and Acoma Indians in the southwestern

United States with their pueblos.

Permanent Dwellings

The homes of sedentary agricultural societies, whose

political and social organizations are defined as nations

and who possess surplus agricultural products, exemplify

this type of dwelling. Surplus agricultural products

allowed the division of labor and the introduction of

other pursuits aside from food production; however,

agriculture is still the primary occupation for a significant

portion of the population. Although they occurred at

different points in time, examples of early sedentary

agricultural housing can be found in English cottages,

such as the Suffolk, Cornwall, and Kent cottages [1].

Urbanization

Permanent dwellings went beyond simply providing

shelter and protection and moved to the consideration of

comfort. These structures began to find their way into what is

now known as the urban setting. The earliest available

evidence suggests that towns came into existence around

4000 BC. Thus began the social and public health problems

that would increase as the population of cities increased

in number and in sophistication. In preurban housing,

the sparse concentration of people allowed for movement

away from human pollution or allowed the dilution of

pollution at its location. The movement of populations

into urban settings placed individuals in close proximity,

without the benefit of previous linkages and without the

ability to relocate away from pollution or other people. 

Urbanization was relatively slow to begin, but once

started, it accelerated rapidly. In the 1800s, only about

3% of the population of the world could be found in

urban settings in excess of 5,000 people. This was soon to

change. The year 1900 saw the percentage increase to

13.6% and subsequently to 29.8% in 1950. The world’s

urban population has grown since that time. By 1975,

more than one in three of the world’s population lived in

an urban setting, with almost one out of every two living

in urban areas by 1997. Industrialized countries currently

find approximately 75% of their population in an urban

setting. The United Nations projects that in 2015 the

world’s urban population will rise to approximately 55%

and that in industrialized nations it will rise to just over 80%.

In the Western world, one of the primary forces driving

urbanization was the Industrial Revolution. The basic

source of energy in the earliest phase of the Industrial

Revolution was water provided by flowing rivers. Therefore,

towns and cities grew next to the great waterways. Factory

buildings were of wood and stone and matched the houses

in which the workers lived, both in construction and in

location. Workers’ homes were little different in the urban

setting than the agricultural homes from whence they

came. However, living close to the workplace was a

definite advantage for the worker of the time. When the

power source for factories changed from water to coal,

steam became the driver and the construction materials

became brick and cast iron, which later evolved into

steel. Increasing populations in cities and towns increased

social problems in overcrowded slums. The lack of

inexpensive, rapid public transportation forced many

workers to live close to their work. These factory areas

were not the pastoral areas with which many were

familiar, but were bleak with smoke and other pollutants.

The inhabitants of rural areas migrated to ever-expanding

1-2 Housing History and Purpose
cities looking for work. Between 1861 and 1911 the

population of England grew by 80%. The cities and

towns of England were woefully unprepared to cope with

the resulting environmental problems, such as the lack of

potable water and insufficient sewerage. 

In this atmosphere, cholera was rampant; and death rates

resembled those of Third World countries today. Children

had a one in six chance of dying before the age of 1 year.

Because of urban housing problems, social reformers such

as Edwin Chadwick began to appear. Chadwick’s Report

on an Enquiry into the Sanitary Condition of the Labouring

Population of Great Britain and on the Means of its

Improvement [2] sought many reforms, some of which

concerned building ventilation and open spaces around

the buildings. However, Chadwick’s primary contention

was that the health of the working classes could be improved

by proper street cleaning, drainage, sewage, ventilation,

and water supplies. In the United States, Shattuck et al.

[3] wrote the Report of the Sanitary Commission of

Massachusetts, which was printed in 1850. In the report,

50 recommendations were made. Among those related to

housing and building issues were recommendations for

protecting school children by ventilation and sanitation of

school buildings, emphasizing town planning and controlling

overcrowded tenements and cellar dwellings. Figure 1.1

demonstrates the conditions common in the tenements. 

In 1845, Dr. John H. Griscom, the City Inspector of

New York, published The Sanitary Condition of the

Laboring Population of New York [4]. His document

expressed once again the argument for housing reform

and sanitation. Griscom is credited with being the first to

use the phrase “how the other half lives.” During this

time, the poor were not only subjected to the physical

problems of poor housing, but also were victimized by

corrupt landlords and builders.

Trends in Housing

The term “tenement house” was first used in America and

dates from the mid-nineteenth century. It was often

intertwined with the term “slum.” Wright [5] notes that

in English, tenement meant “an abode for a person or for

the soul, when someone else owned the property.” Slum,

on the other hand, initially was used at the beginning of

the 19th century as a slang term for a room. By the

middle of the century, slum had evolved into a term for a

back dwelling occupied by the lowest members of society.

Von Hoffman [6] states that this term had, by the end of

the century, begun to be used interchangeably with

tenement. The author noted that in the larger cities of

the United States, the apartment house emerged in the

1830s as a housing unit of two to five stories, with each

story containing apartments of two to four rooms. It was

originally built for the upper group of the working class.

The tenement house emerged in the 1830s when

landlords converted warehouses into inexpensive housing

designed to accommodate Irish and black workers.

Additionally, existing large homes were subdivided and

new structures were added, creating rear houses and, in

the process, eliminating the traditional gardens and yards

behind them. These rear houses, although new, were

no healthier than the front house, often housing up to

10 families. When this strategy became inadequate to

satisfy demand, the epoch period of the tenements began.

Although unpopular, the tenement house grew in

numbers, and, by 1850 in New York and Boston, each

tenement housed an average of 65 people. During the

1850s, the railroad house or railroad tenement was

introduced. This structure was a solid, rectangular block

with a narrow alley in the back. The structure was

typically 90 feet long and had 12 to 16 rooms, each about

6 feet by 6 feet and holding around four people. The

facility allowed no direct light or air into rooms except

those facing the street or alley. Further complicating this

structure was the lack of privacy for the tenants. A lack of

hallways eliminated any semblance of privacy. Open sewers,

a single privy in the back of the building, and uncollected

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 1-3

Figure 1.1. Conditions in the Tenements
garbage resulted in an objectionable and unhygienic place to

live. Additionally, the wood construction common at the

time, coupled with coal and wood heating, made fire an

ever-present danger. As a result of a series of tenement

fires in 1860 in New York, such terms as death-trap and

fire-trap were coined to describe the poorly constructed

living facilities [6]. 

The two last decades of the 19th century saw the

introduction and development of dumbbell tenements, a

front and rear tenement connected by a long hall. These

tenements were typically five stories, with a basement and

no elevator (elevators were not required for any building

of less than six stories). Dumbbell tenements, like other

tenements, resulted in unaesthetic and unhealthy places to

live. Garbage was often thrown down the airshafts, natural

light was confined to the first floor hallway, and the public

hallways only contained one or two toilets and a sink.

This apparent lack of sanitary facilities was compounded

by the fact that many families took in boarders to help with

expenses. In fact, 44,000 families rented space to boarders

in New York in 1890, with this increasing to 164,000

families in 1910. In the early 1890s, New York had a

population of more than 1 million, of which 70% were

residents of multifamily dwellings. Of this group, 80%

lived in tenements consisting mostly of dumbbell tenements.

The passage of the New York Tenement House Act of

1901 spelled the end of the dumbbells and acceptance of

a new tenement type developed in the 1890s—the park

or central court tenement, which was distinguished by a

park or open space in the middle of a group of buildings.

This design was implemented to reduce the activity on

the front street and to enhance the opportunity for fresh

air and recreation in the courtyard. The design often

included roof playgrounds, kindergartens, communal

laundries, and stairways on the courtyard side. 

Although the tenements did not go away, reform groups

supported ideas such as suburban cottages to be

developed for the working class. These cottages were twostory brick and timber, with a porch and a gabled roof.

According to Wright [5], a Brooklyn project called

Homewood consisted of 53 acres of homes in a planned

neighborhood from which multifamily dwellings, saloons,

and factories were banned.

Although there were many large homes for the well-to-do,

single homes for the not-so-wealthy were not abundant.

The first small house designed for the individual of

modest means was the bungalow. According to

Schoenauer [1], bungalows originated in India. The

bungalow was introduced into the United States in 1880

with the construction of a home in Cape Cod. The bungalow,

derived for use in tropical climates, was especially popular

in California. 

Company towns were another trend in housing in the

19th century. George Pullman, who built railway cars in the

1880s, and John H. Patterson, of the National Cash

Register Company, developed notable company towns.

Wright [5] notes that in 1917 the U.S. Bureau of Labor

Standards estimated that at least 1,000 industrial firms were

providing housing for their employees. The provision of

housing was not necessarily altruistic. The motivation

for providing housing varied from company to company.

Such motivations included the use of housing as a

recruitment incentive for skilled workers, a method of

linking the individual to the company, and a belief that a

better home life would make the employees happier and

more productive in their jobs. Some companies, such as

Firestone and Goodyear, went beyond the company town

and allowed their employees to obtain loans for homes

from company-established banks. A prime motivator of

company town planning was sanitation, because

maintaining the worker’s health could potentially lead to

fewer workdays lost due to illness. Thus, in the

development of the town, significant consideration was

given to sanitary issues such as window screens, sewage

treatment, drainage, and water supplies. 

Before World War I there was a shortage of adequate

dwellings. Even after World War I, insufficient funding, a

shortage of skilled labor, and a dearth of building materials

compounded the problem. However, the design of homes

after the war was driven in part by health considerations,

such as providing good ventilation, sun orientation and

exposure, potable pressurized water, and at least one

private toilet. Schoenauer [1] notes that, during the

postwar years, the improved mobility of the public led to

an increase in the growth of suburban areas, exemplified

by the detached and sumptuous communities outside

New York, such as Oyster Bay. In the meantime, the

conditions of working populations consisting of many

immigrants began to improve with the improving

economy of the 1920s. The garden apartment became

popular. These units were well lighted and ventilated and

had a courtyard, which was open to all and well maintained. 

Immediately after World War I and during the 1920s, city

population growth was outpaced by population growth in

the suburbs by a factor of two. The focus at the time was

on the single-family suburban dwelling. The 1920s were a

time of growth, but the decade following the Great

1-4 Housing History and Purpose
Depression, beginning in 1929, was one of deflation,

cessation of building, loss of mortgage financing, and the

plunge into unemployment of large numbers of building

trade workers. Additionally, 1.5 million home loans were

foreclosed during this period. In 1936, the housing market

began to make a comeback; however, the 1930s would

come to be known as the beginning of public housing,

with increased public involvement in housing

construction, as demonstrated by the many laws passed

during the era [5]. The National Housing Act was

passed by Congress in 1934 and set up the Federal Housing

Administration. This agency encouraged banks, building 

and loan associations, and others to make loans for

building homes, small business establishments, and farm

buildings. If the Federal Housing Administration

approved the plans, it would insure the loan. In 1937,

Congress passed another National Housing Act that

enabled the Federal Housing Administration to take

control of slum clearance. It made 60-year loans at low

interest to local governments to help them build

apartment blocks. Rents in these homes were fixed and

were only available to low-income families. By 1941, the

agency had assisted in the construction of more than

120,000 family units. 

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 1-5

1934 Housing Act establishes Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages and make loans to 

low-income families; Fannie Mae created.

1937 Housing Act establishes public housing.

1944 Serviceman’s Readjustment Act creates Veteran Administration mortgages; trend toward 

suburbia begins.

Late 1950s Urban renewal begins; slum clearance developed to promote construction of affordable housing.

1965 Department of Housing and Urban Development created.

1968 Model Cities program launched; fair housing launched through the Civil Rights Act.

1971 Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act passed. 

1974 Section 8 rental subsidy program begins; Community Development Block Grant program begins.

1977 Urban Development Action Grants begin.

1986 Low-income housing tax credit created.

1987 McKinney Homeless Assistance Act passed; creation of low-income housing tax credit.

1991–1994 Public housing inspection for lead paint.

1992 Residential Lead Hazard Reduction Act passed (Title X of the 1992 Housing and Community 

Development Act).

1993 Hope VI program begins to redevelop old public housing.

1996 Lead-based paint disclosure becomes law.

1999 HUD and CDC launch the Healthy Homes Initiative.

2000 HUD publishes new lead paint regulations for federally funded assisted housing; President’s Task 

Force releases federal interagency plan to eliminate childhood lead paint poisoning by 2010.

2001 EPA publishes final standards for lead in paint, dust, and soil in housing.

History of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
During World War II, the focus of home building was on

housing for workers who were involved in the war effort.

Homes were being built through federal agencies such as

the newly formed Federal Housing Administration, formed

in 1934 and transferred to HUD in 1965. According to

the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) [7], in the years since

World War II, the types of homes Americans live in have

changed dramatically. In 1940, most homes were considered

attached houses (row houses, townhouses, and duplexes).

Small apartment houses with two to four apartments had

their zenith in the 1950s. In the 1960 census, two-thirds

of the housing inventory was made up of one-family detached

houses, which declined to less than 60% in the 1990 census.

The postwar years saw the expansion of suburban housing

led by William J. Levitt’s Levittown, on Long Island,

which had a strong influence on postwar building and

initiated the subdivisions and tract houses of the

following decades (Figure 1.2). The 1950s and 1960s saw

continued suburban development, with the growing ease of

transportation marked by the expansion of the interstate

highway system. As the cost of housing began to increase

as a result of increased demand, a grassroots movement to

provide adequate housing for the poor began to emerge.

According to Wright [5], in the 1970s only about 25% of the

population could afford a $35,000 home. According to

Gaillard [8], Koinonia Partners, a religious organization

founded in 1942 by Clarence Jordan near Albany,

Georgia, was the seed for Habitat for Humanity. Habitat

for Humanity, founded in 1976 by Millard Fuller, is

known for its international efforts and has constructed

more than 150,000 houses in 80 countries; 50,000 of these

houses are in the United States. The homes are energyefficient and environmentally friendly to conserve resources

and reduce long-term costs to the homeowners. 

Builders also began promoting one-floor minihomes and

no-frills homes of approximately 900 to 1,200 square feet.

Manufactured housing began to increase in popularity,

with mobile home manufacturers becoming some of the

most profitable corporations in the United States in the

early 1970s. In the 1940 census, manufactured housing

were lumped into the “other” category with boats and tourist

cabins: by the 1990 census, manufactured housing made up

7% of the total housing inventory. Many communities

ban manufactured housing from residential

neighborhoods. 

According to Hart et al. [9], nearly 30% of all home sales

nationwide are of manufactured housing, and more than

90% of those homes are never moved once they are

anchored. According to a 2001 industry report, the

demand for prefabricated housing is expected to increase

in excess of 3% annually to $20 billion in 2005, with

most units being manufactured homes. The largest

market is expected to continue in the southern part of the

United States, with the most rapid growth occurring in

the western part of the country. As of 2000, five

manufactured-home producers, representing 35% of the

market, dominated the industry. This industry, over the

past 20 to 25 years, has been affected by two pieces of

federal legislation. The first, the Mobile Home

Construction and Safety Standards Act, adopted by HUD

in 1974, was passed to aid consumers through regulation

and enforcement of HUD design and construction

standards for manufactured homes. The second, the 1980

Housing Act, required the federal government to change

the term “mobile home” to “manufactured housing” in all

federal laws and literature. One of the prime reasons for

this change was that these homes were in reality no longer

mobile in the true sense. 

The energy crisis in the United States between 1973 and

1974 had a major effect on the way Americans lived,

drove, and built their homes. The high cost of both

heating and cooling homes required action, and some of

the action taken was ill advised or failed to consider

healthy housin concerns. Sealing homes and using untried

insulation materials and other energy conservation actions

often resulted in major and sometimes dangerous

buildups of indoor air pollutants. These buildups of

toxins occurred both in homes and offices. Sealing

buildings for energy efficiency and using off-gassing

building materials containing urea-formaldehyde, vinyl,

and other new plastic surfaces, new glues, and even

wallpapers created toxic environments. These newly sealed

environments were not refreshed with makeup air and

resulted in the accumulation of both chemical and

1-6 Housing History and Purpose

Figure 1.2. Levittown, New York
biologic pollutants and moisture leading to mold growth,

representing new threats to both short-term and longterm health. The results of these actions are still being

dealt with today. 

References

1. Schoenauer N. 6,000 years of housing. New York/

London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.; 2000.

2. Chadwick E. Report on an enquiry into the

sanitary condition of the labouring population of

Great Britain and on the means of its

improvements. London: Clowes and Sons; 1842.

3. Shattuck L, Banks N Jr, Abbot J. Report of the

Sanitary Commission of Massachusetts, 1850.

Boston: Dutton and Wentworth; 1850. Available

from URL: http://www.deltaomega.org/shattuck.pdf.

4. Griscom JH. The sanitary condition of the

labouring population of New York. New York:

Harper; 1845. 

5. Wright G. Building the dream—a social history

of housing in America. Cambridge, MA/London:

The MIT Press; 1998. 

6. Von Hoffman A. The origins of American

housing reform. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center

for Housing Studies—Harvard University; August

1998. p. W98-2.

7. US Census Bureau. Historical census of housing

tables—units in structure; 2002. Washington, DC:

US Census Bureau; 2002. Available from URL: 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/

historic/units.html.

8. Gaillard F. If I were a carpenter, twenty years of

Habitat for Humanity. Winston-Salem, NC:

John E. Blair; 1996.

9. Hart JF, Rhodes MJ, Morgan JT, Lindberg MB.

The unknown world of the mobile home.

Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press; 2002.

Additional Sources of Information 

Dolkart A. The 1901 Tenement House Act: chapter 6,

cleaning up the toilets. New York: Lower East Side

Tenement Museum; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.tenement.org/ features_dolkart7.html.

Hale EE. Workingmen’s homes, essays and stories, on the

homes of men who work in large towns. Boston: James

R. Osgood and Company; 1874.

History of plumbing in America. Plumbing and

Mechanical Magazine. 1987 Jul. Available from URL:

http://www.plumbingsupply.com/pmamerica.html.

Housing Act of 1949, The US Committee on

Agriculture Glossary.

Lang RE, Sohmer RR. Editors’ introduction, legacy of

the Housing Act of 1949: the past, present, and future of

federal housing and urban policy. Housing Policy Debate

2000; 11(2) 291–8. Available from URL:

http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/ programs/hpd/v11i2-

edintro.shtml.

Mason JB. History of housing in the US. 1930–1980.

Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company; 1982. 

Passic F. Urban renewal. Morning Star [Albion,

Michigan]. 1997 Feb 13; 6. Available from URL:

http://www.albionmich.com/ history/

histor_notebook/940213.shtml. 

Red-lining [definition of], 535A.1 Definitions, Iowa

Code 2001: Section 535A.1. Des Moines, IA: The Iowa

Legislature. Available from URL:

http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/

2001/535A/1.html.

Rental Housing On Line. Federal housing acts. Port

Huron, MI: Rental Housing On Line; no date. Available

from URL: http://www.rhol.org/rental/fedact.htm.

Rental Housing On Line. Government’s role in low

income housing. Port Huron, MI: Rental Housing

On Line; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.rhol.org/rental/housing.htm.

Texas Low Income Housing Information Service. The

past: special interests, race, and local control; Housing

Act of 1949: bipartisan support for public housing.

Austin, TX: Texas Low Income Housing Information

Service; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.texashousing.org/txlihis/ phdebate/past12.html.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Fair housing laws and presidential Executive Orders.

Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and 

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 1-7
Urban Development; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.hud.gov/ offices/ fheo/ FHLaws/index.cfm.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Homes and communities. Washington, DC: US

Department of Housing and Urban Development; no

date. Available from URL: http://www.hud.gov.

Warth G. Research project looking at red-lining. North

County [California] Times 2002 May 5. Available from

URL: http://www.nctimes.com/ articles/2002/05/

05/export8963.txt.

1-8 Housing History and Purpose
“The connection between health and dwelling is one of the

most important that exists.” 

Florence Nightingale

Introduction

It seems obvious that health is related to where people

live. People spend 50% or more of every day inside their

homes. Consequently, it makes sense that the housing

environment constitutes one of the major influences on

health and well-being. Many of the basic principles of the

link between housing and health were elucidated more

than 60 years ago by the American Public Health

Association (APHA) Committee on the Hygiene of

Housing. After World War II, political scientists,

sociologists, and others became interested in the relation

between housing and health, mostly as an outgrowth of a

concern over poor housing conditions resulting from the

massive influx into American cities of veterans looking

for jobs. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, there is

a growing awareness that health is linked not only to the

physical structure of a housing unit, but also to the

neighborhood and community in which the house is located.

According to Ehlers and Steel [1], in 1938, a Committee

on the Hygiene of Housing, appointed by APHA,

created the Basic Principles of Healthful Housing, which

provided guidance regarding the fundamental needs of

humans as they relate to housing. These fundamental

needs include physiologic and psychologic needs,

protection against disease, protection against injury,

protection against fire and electrical shock, and

protection against toxic and explosive gases. 

Fundamental Physiologic Needs 

Housing should provide for the following physiologic needs:

1. protection from the elements,

2. a thermal environment that will avoid undue heat loss,

3. a thermal environment that will permit adequate

heat loss from the body,

4. an atmosphere of reasonable chemical purity,

5. adequate daylight illumination and avoidance

of undue daylight glare,

6. direct sunlight,

7. adequate artificial illumination and avoidance of glare,

8. protection from excessive noise, and

9. adequate space for exercise and for children to play.

The first three physiologic needs reflect the requirement

for adequate protection from the elements. The lack of

adequate heating and cooling systems in homes can

contribute to respiratory illnesses or even lead to death

from extreme temperatures. According to the National

Weather Service, 98 people died from extreme

temperatures in 1996; 62 of these were due to extreme

cold. Hypothermia occurs when the body temperature

drops below 96°F (46°C). It can occur in any person

exposed to severe cold without enough protection. Older

people are particularly susceptible because they may not

notice the cold as easily and can develop hypothermia

even after exposure to mild cold. Susceptibility to the

cold can be exacerbated by certain medications, medical

conditions, or the consumption of alcohol. Hyperthermia is

the name given to a variety of heat-related illnesses. The two

most common forms of hyperthermia are heat

exhaustion and heat stroke. Of the two, heat stroke is

especially dangerous and requires immediate medical attention. 

According to the National Institute on Aging (NIA) [2],

lifestyle factors can increase the risk for hyperthermia:

Unbearably hot living quarters. This would include

people who live in homes without fans or air

conditioners. To help avert the problem, residents should

open windows at night; create cross-ventilation by opening

windows on two sides of the building; cover windows

when they are exposed to direct sunlight and keep curtains,

shades, or blinds drawn during the hottest part of the day.

Lack of transportation. People without fans or air conditioners

often are unable to go to shopping malls, movie theaters, and

libraries to cool off because of illness or the lack of

transportation.

Inadequate or inoperable windows. Society has become

so reliant on climate control systems that when they fail,

windows cannot be opened. As was the case in the 2003

heat wave in France, many homes worldwide do not even

have fans for cooling.

Chapter 2: Basic Principles of Healthy Housing

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-1
Overdressing. Older people, because they may not feel

the heat, may not dress appropriately in hot weather. 

Visiting overcrowded places. Trips should be scheduled

during nonrush-hour times and participation in special events

should be carefully planned to avoid disease transmission.

Not checking weather conditions. Older people,

particularly those at special risk, should stay indoors on

especially hot and humid days, particularly when an air

pollution alert is in effect.

USCB [3] reported that about 75% of homes in the

United States used either utility gas or electricity for

heating purposes, with utility gas accounting for about

50%. This, of course, varies with the region of the

country, depending on the availability of hydroelectric

power. This compares with the 1940 census, which found

that three-quarters of all households heated with coal or

wood. Electric heat was so rare that it was not even an

option on the census form of 1940. Today, coal has

virtually disappeared as a household fuel. Wood all but

disappeared as a heating fuel in 1970, but made a modest

comeback at 4% nationally by 1990. This move over time

to more flexible fuels allows a majority of today’s homes

to maintain healthy temperatures, although many houses

still lack adequate insulation.

The fifth through the seventh physiologic concerns

address adequate illumination, both natural and artificial.

Research has revealed a strong relationship between light

and human physiology. The effects of light on both the

human eye and human skin are notable. According to

Zilber [4], one of the physiologic responses of the skin to

sunlight is the production of vitamin D. Light allows us

to see. It also affects body rhythms and psychologic

health. Average individuals are affected daily by both

natural and artificial lighting levels in their homes.

Adequate lighting is important in allowing people to see

unsanitary conditions and to prevent injury, thus

contributing to a healthier and safer environment.

Improper indoor lighting can also contribute to eyestrain

from inadequate illumination, glare, and flicker. 

Avoiding excessive noise (eighth physiologic concern) is

important in the 21st century. However, the concept of

noise pollution is not new. Two thousand years ago, Julius

Caesar banned chariots from traveling the streets of Rome

late at night. In the 19th century, numerous towns and

cities prohibited ringing church bells. In the early 20th

century, London prohibited church bells from ringing

between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM. In 1929, New York City

formed a Noise Abatement Commission that was charged

with evaluating noise issues and suggesting solutions. At

that time, it was concluded that loud noise affected health

and productivity. In 1930, this same commission

determined that constant exposure to loud noises could

affect worker efficiency and long-term hearing levels. In

1974, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

produced a document titled Information on Levels of

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and

Welfare With an Adequate Margin of Safety [5]. This

document identified maximum levels of 55 decibels outdoors

and 45 decibels indoors to prevent interference with

activities and 70 decibels for all areas to prevent hearing

loss. In 1990, the United Kingdom implemented The

Household Appliances (Noise Emission) Regulations [6]

to help control indoor noise from modern appliances.

Noise has physiologic impacts aside from the potential to

reduce hearing ability. According to the American SpeechLanguage-Hearing Association [7], these effects include

elevated blood pressure; negative cardiovascular effects;

increased breathing rates, digestion, and stomach

disturbances; ulcers; negative effects on developing

fetuses; difficulty sleeping after the noise stops; plus the

intensification of the effects of drugs, alcohol, aging, and

carbon monoxide. In addition, noise can reduce attention

to tasks and impede speech communication. Finally, noise

can hamper performance of daily tasks, increase fatigue,

and cause irritability.

Household noise can be controlled in various ways.

Approaching the problem during initial construction is

the simplest, but has not become popular. For example, in

early 2003, only about 30% of homebuilders offered

sound-attenuating blankets for interior walls. A soundattenuating blanket is a lining of noise abatement

products (the thickness depends on the material being used).

Spray-in-place soft foam insulation can also be used as a

sound dampener, as can special walking mats for floors.

Actions that can help reduce household noise include

installing new, quieter appliances and isolating washing

machines to reduce noise and water passing through pipes. 

The ninth and final physiologic need is for adequate

space for exercise and play. Before industrialization in the

United States and England, a preponderance of the

population lived and worked in more rural areas with

very adequate areas for exercise and play. As

industrialization impacted demographics, more people

were in cities without ample space for play and exercise.

In the 19th century, society responded with the

development of playgrounds and public parks. Healthful

housing should include the provision of safe play and

2-2 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing
exercise areas. Many American neighborhoods are severely

deficient, with no area for children to safely play. New

residential areas often do not have sidewalks or street

lighting, nor are essential services available by foot

because of highway and road configurations. 

Fundamental Psychologic Needs

Seven fundamental psychologic needs for healthy housing

include the following:

1. adequate privacy for the individual,

2. opportunities for normal family life,

3. opportunities for normal community life,

4. facilities that make possible the performance of

household tasks without undue physical and

mental fatigue,

5. facilities for maintenance of cleanliness of the

dwelling and of the person,

6. possibilities for aesthetic satisfaction in the home

and its surroundings, and 

7. concordance with prevailing social standards of

the local community.

Privacy is a necessity to most people, to some degree and

during some periods. The increase in house size and the

diminishing family size have, in many instances, increased

the availability of privacy. Ideally, everyone would have

their own rooms, or, if that were not possible, would

share a bedroom with only one person of the same sex,

excepting married couples and small children. Psychiatrists

consider it important for children older than 2 years to

have bedrooms separate from their parents. In addition,

bedrooms and bathrooms should be accessible directly

from halls or living rooms and not through other bedrooms.

In addition to the psychologic value of privacy, repeated

studies have shown that lack of space and quiet due to

crowding can lead to poor school performance in children.

Coupled with a natural desire for privacy is the social

desire for normal family and community life. A wholesome

atmosphere requires adequate living room space and

adequate space for withdrawal elsewhere during periods of

entertainment. This accessibility expands beyond the walls

of the home and includes easy communication with centers

of culture and business, such as schools, churches,

entertainment, shopping, libraries, and medical services.

Protection Against Disease 

Eight ways to protect against contaminants include the

following:

1. provide a safe and sanitary water supply;

2. protect the water supply system against pollution;

3. provide toilet facilities that minimize the danger

of transmitting disease;

4. protect against sewage contamination of the interior

surfaces of the dwelling;

5. avoid unsanitary conditions near the dwelling;

6. exclude vermin from the dwelling, which may

play a part in transmitting disease;

7. provide facilities for keeping milk and food

fresh; and 

8. allow sufficient space in sleeping rooms to

minimize the danger of contact infection.

According to the U.S. EPA [8], there are approximately

160,000 public or community drinking water systems in the

United States. The current estimate is that 42 million

Americans (mostly in rural America) get their water from

private wells or other small, unregulated water systems.

The presence of adequate water, sewer, and plumbing

facilities is central to the prevention, reduction, and possible

elimination of water-related diseases. According to the

Population Information Program [9], water-related diseases

can be organized into four categories: 

• waterborne diseases, including those caused by

both fecal-oral organisms and those caused by toxic

substances;

• water-based diseases; 

• water-related vector diseases; and 

• water-scarce diseases. 

Numerous studies link improvements in sanitation and the

provision of potable water with significant reductions in

morbidity and mortality from water-related diseases.

Clean water and sanitation facilities have proven to

reduce infant and child mortality by as much as 55%

in Third World countries according to studies from the

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-3
1980s. Waterborne diseases are often referred to as “dirtywater” diseases and are the result of contamination from

chemical, human, and animal wastes. Specific diseases

in this group include cholera, typhoid, shigella, polio,

meningitis, and hepatitis A and E. Water-based diseases

are caused by aquatic organisms that spend part of their

life cycle in the water and another part as parasites of

animals. Although rare in the United States, these

diseases include dracunculiasis, paragonimiasis,

clonorchiasis, and schistosomiasis. The reduction in these

diseases in many countries has not only led to decreased rates

of illness and death, but has also increased productivity

through a reduction in days lost from work. 

Water-related diseases are linked to vectors that breed and

live in or near polluted and unpolluted water. These vectors are

primarily mosquitoes that infect people with the disease

agents for malaria, yellow fever, dengue fever, and

filariasis. While the control of vectorborne diseases is a

complex matter, in the United States, most of the control

focus has been on controlling habitat and breeding areas

for the vectors and reducing and controlling human cases

of the disease that can serve as hosts for the vector.

Vectorborne diseases have recently become a more of a

concern to the United States with the importation of the

West Nile virus. The transmission of West Nile virus

occurs when a mosquito vector takes a blood meal from a bird

or incidental hosts, such as a dog, cat, horse, or other

vertebrate. The human cases of West Nile virus in

2003 numbered 9,862, with 264 deaths. Finally,

water-scarce diseases are diseases that flourish where

sanitation is poor due to a scarcity of fresh water. Diseases

included in this category are diphtheria, leprosy, whooping

cough, tetanus, tuberculosis, and trachoma. These

diseases are often transmitted when the supply of fresh

water is inadequate for hand washing and basic hygiene.

These conditions are still rampant in much of the world,

but are essentially absent from the United States due to

the extensive availability of potable drinking water. 

In 2000, USCB [10] reported that 1.4% of U.S. homes

lacked plumbing facilities. This differs greatly from the

1940 census, when nearly one-half of U.S. homes lacked

complete plumbing. The proportion has continually

dropped, falling to about one-third in 1950 and then to

one-sixth in 1960. Complete plumbing facilities are

defined as hot and cold piped water, a bathtub or shower,

and a flush toilet. The containment of household sewage

is instrumental in protecting the public from waterborne

and vectorborne diseases. The 1940 census revealed that

more than a third of U.S. homes had no flush toilet, with

70% of the homes in some states without a flush toilet.

Of the 13 million housing units at the time without flush

toilets, 11.8 million (90.7%) had an outside toilet or

privy, another 1 million (7.6%) had no toilet or privy,

and the remainder had a nonflush toilet in the structure. 

In contrast to these figures, the 2000 census data demonstrate

the great progress that has been made in providing sanitary

sewer facilities. Nationally, 74.8% of homes are served by

a public sewer, with 24.1% served by a septic tank or cesspool,

and the remaining 1.1% using other means. 

Vermin, such as rodents, have long been linked to

property destruction and disease. Integrated pest

management, along with proper housing construction, has

played a significant role in reducing vermin around the

modern home. Proper food storage, rat-proofing

construction, and ensuring good sanitation outside the

home have served to eliminate or reduce rodent problems

in the 21st century home.

Facilities to properly store milk and food have not only been

instrumental in reducing the incidence of some foodborne

diseases, but have also significantly changed the diet in

developed countries. Refrigeration can be traced to the

ancient Chinese, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. In the

last 150 years, great strides have been made in using

refrigeration to preserve and cool food. Vapor compression

using air and, subsequently, ammonia as a coolant was

first developed in the 1850s. In the early 1800s, natural

ice was extracted for use as a coolant and preserver of

food. By the late 1870s, there were 35 commercial ice

plants in the United States and, by 1909, there were 2,000.

However, as early as the 1890s, sources of natural ice 

began to be a problem as a result of pollution and sewage

dumped into bodies of water. Thus, the use of natural ice as

a refrigerant began to present a health problem. Mechanical

manufacture of ice provided a temporary solution, which

eventually resulted in providing mechanical refrigeration. 

Refrigeration was first used by the brewing and meat-packing

industries; but most households had iceboxes (Figure 2.1),

which made the ice wagon a popular icon of the late

1800s and early 1900s. In 1915, the first refrigerator, the

Guardian, was introduced. This unit was the predecessor of

the Frigidaire. The refrigerator became as necessary to the

household as a stove or sewing machine. By 1937, nearly

6 million refrigerators were manufactured in the United

States. By 1950, in excess of 80% of American farms and

more than 90% of urban homes had a refrigerator.

Adequate living and sleeping space are also important in

protecting against contagion. It is an issue not only of

2-4 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing
privacy but of adequate room to reduce the potential for the

transmission of contagion. Much improvement has been

made in the adequacy of living space for the U.S. family

over the last 30 years. According to USCB [11], the

average size of new single homes has increased from a

1970 average of 1,500 square feet to a 2000 average of

2,266 square feet. USCB [11] says that slightly less than

5% of U.S. homes were considered crowded in 1990; that

is, they had more than one person per room. However,

this is an increase since the 1980 census, when the figure

was 4.5%. This is the only time there has been an

increase since the first housing census was initiated in

1940, when one in five homes was crowded. During the

1940 census, most crowded homes were found in

southern states, primarily in the rural south. Crowding

has become common in a few large urban areas, with

more than one-fourth of all crowded units located in four

metropolitan areas: Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, and

New York. The rate for California has not changed

significantly between 1940 (13%) and 1990 (12%).

Excessive crowding in homes has the potential to increase

not only communicable disease transmission, but also the

stress level of occupants because modern urban

individuals spend considerably more time indoors than

did their 1940s counterparts.

Protection Against Injury

A major provision for safe housing construction is

developing and implementing building codes. According

to the International Code Council one- and two-family

dwelling code, the purpose of building codes is to provide

minimum standards for the protection of life, limb,

property, environment, and for the safety and welfare of

the consumer, general public, and the owners and

occupants of residential buildings regulated by this

code [12]. 

However, as with all types of codes, the development of

innovative processes and products must be allowed to take

a place in improving construction technology. Thus,

according to the International Code Council one- and

two-family dwelling code, building codes are not

intended to limit the appropriate use of materials,

appliances, equipment, or methods by design or

construction that are not specifically prescribed by the

code if the building official determines that the proposed

alternate materials, appliances, equipment or methods of

design or construction are at least equivalent of that

prescribed in this code. While the details of what a code

should include are beyond the scope of this section,

additional information can be found at

http://www.iccsafe.org/, the Web site of the International

Code Council (ICC). ICC is an organization formed by

the consolidation of the Building Officials and Code

Administrators International, Southern Building Code

Congress International, Inc., and the International

Conference of Building Officials [12].

According to the Home Safety Council (HSC) [13], the

leading causes of home injury deaths in 1998 were falls

and poisonings, which accounted for 6,756 and

5,758 deaths, respectively. As expected, the rates and

national estimates of the number of fall deaths were

highest among those older than 64 years, and stairs or steps

were associated with 17% of fall deaths. Overall, falls were

the leading cause of nonfatal, unintentional injuries

occurring at home and accounted for 5.6 million injuries.

Similar to the mortality statistics, consumer products most

often associated with emergency department visits included

stairs and steps, accounting for 854,631 visits, and floors,

accounting for 556,800 visits. A national survey by HSC

found that one-third of all households with stairs did not

have banisters or handrails on at least one set of stairs.

Related to this, homes with older persons were more

likely to have banisters or handrails than were those where

young children live or visit. The survey also revealed that

48% of households have windows on the second floor or

above, but only 25% have window locks or bars to

prevent children from falling out. Bathtub mats or

nonskid strips to reduce bathtub falls were used in 63%

of American households. However, in senior households

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-5

Figure 2.1. Circa 1890 Icebox 

Source: Robert R. McCormick Museum, Wheaton, Illinois
(age 70 years and older), 79% used mats or nonskid strips.

Nineteen percent of the total number of homes surveyed

had grab bars to supplement the mats and strips. Significantly,

only 39% of the group most susceptible to falls (people aged

70 years and older) used both nonskid surfaces and grab bars.

Protection Against Fire

An important component of safe housing is to control

conditions that promote the initiation and spread of fire.

Between 1992 and 2001, an average of 4,266 Americans

died annually in fires and nearly 25,000 were injured.

This fact and the following information from the United

States Fire Administration (USFA) [14] demonstrate the

impact that fire safety and the lack of it have in the United

States. The United States has one of the highest fire death

rates in the industrialized world, with 13.4 deaths per

million people. At least 80% of all fire deaths occur in

residences. Residential fires account for 23% of all fires

and 76% of structure fires. In one- and two-family

dwellings, fires start in the kitchen 25.5% of the time and

originate in the bedroom 13.7% of the time. Apartment

fires most often start in the kitchen, but at almost twice

the rate (48.5%), with bedrooms again being the second

most common place at 13.4%.

These USFA statistics also disclose that cooking is the

leading cause of home fires, usually a result of unattended

cooking and human error rather than mechanical failure

of the cooking units. The leading cause of fire deaths in

homes is careless smoking, which can be significantly

deterred by smoke alarms and smolder-resistant bedding

and upholstered furniture. Heating system fires tend to be

a larger problem in single-family homes than in

apartments because the heating systems in family homes

frequently are not professionally maintained. 

A number of conditions in the household can contribute

to the creation or spread of fire. The USFA data indicate

that more than one-third of rural Americans use fireplaces,

wood stoves, and other fuel-fired appliances as primary sources

of heat. These same systems account for 36% of rural

residential fires. Many of these fires are the result of

creosote buildup in chimneys and stovepipes. These fires

could be avoided by

• inspecting and cleaning by a certified chimney

specialist;

• clearing the area around the hearth of debris,

decorations, and flammable materials;

• using a metal mesh screen with fireplaces and

leaving glass doors open while burning a fire;

• installing stovepipe thermometers to monitor flue

temperatures;

• leaving air inlets on wood stoves open and never

restricting air supply to the fireplaces, thus

helping to reduce creosote buildup;

• using fire-resistant materials on walls around

wood stoves;

• never using flammable liquids to start a fire;

• using only seasoned hardwood rather than soft,

moist wood, which accelerates creosote buildup;

• building small fires that burn completely and

produce less smoke;

• never burning trash, debris, or pasteboard in a

fireplace;

• placing logs in the rear of the fireplace on an adequate

supporting grate;

• never leaving a fire in the fireplace unattended;

• keeping the roof clear of leaves, pine needles,

and other debris;

• covering the chimney with a mesh screen spark

arrester; and

• removing branches hanging above the chimney,

flues, or vents. 

USFA [14] also notes that manufactured homes can be

susceptible to fires. More than one-fifth of residential fires

in these facilities are related to the use of supplemental

room heaters, such as wood- and coal-burning stoves,

kerosene heaters, gas space-heaters, and electrical heaters.

Most fires related to supplemental heating equipment result

from improper installation, maintenance, or use of the

appliance. USFA recommendations to reduce the chance

of fire with these types of appliances include the following:

• placing wood stoves on noncombustible surfaces

or a code-specified or listed floor surface;

2-6 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing
• placing noncombustible materials around the

opening and hearth of fireplaces;

• placing space heaters on firm, out-of-the-way

surfaces to reduce tipping over and subsequent

spillage of fuel and providing at least 3 feet of air

space between the heating device and walls, chairs,

firewood, and curtains;

• placing vents and chimneys to allow 18 inches of air

space between single-wall connector pipes and

combustibles and 2 inches between insulated

chimneys and combustibles; and 

• using only the fuel designated by the

manufacturer for the appliance.

The ability to escape from a building when fire has been

discovered or detected is of extreme importance. In the

modern home, three key elements can contribute to a safe

exit from a home during the threat of fire. The first of

these is a working smoke alarm system. The average

homeowner in the 1960s had never heard of a smoke

alarm, but by the mid-1980s, laws in 38 states and in

thousands of municipalities required smoke alarms in all

new and existing residences. By 1995, 93% of all singlefamily and multifamily homes, apartments, nursing

homes, and dormitories were equipped with alarms. The

cost decreased from $1,000 for a professionally installed unit

for a three-bedroom home in the 1970s to an ownerinstalled $10 unit. According to the EPA [15],

ionization chamber and photoelectric are the two most

common smoke detectors available commercially.

Helmenstein [16] states that a smoke alarm uses one or

both methods, and occasionally uses a heat detector, to

warn of a fire. These units can be powered by a 9-volt battery,

a lithium battery, or 120-volt house wiring. Ionization

detectors function using an ionization chamber and a minute

source of ionizing radiation. The radiation source is

americium-241 (perhaps 1/5,000th of a gram), while the

ionization chamber consists of two plates separated by about a

centimeter. The power source (battery or house current)

applies voltage to the plates, resulting in one plate being

charged positively while the other plate is charged negatively.

The americium constantly releases alpha particles that knock

electrons off the atoms in the air, ionizing the oxygen and

nitrogen atoms in the chamber. The negative plate attracts

the positively charged oxygen and nitrogen atoms, while the

electrons are attracted to the positive plate, generating a

small, continuous electric current. If smoke enters the

ionization chamber, the smoke particles attach to the ions

and neutralize them, so they do not reach the plate. The

alarm is then triggered by the drop in current between the

plates [16]. 

Photoelectric devices function in one of two ways. First, smoke

blocks a light beam, reducing the light reaching the photocell,

which sets off the alarm. In the second and more

common type of photoelectric unit, smoke particles

scatter the light onto a photocell, initiating an alarm. Both

detector types are effective smoke sensors and both must

pass the same test to be certified as Underwriters Laboratories

(UL) smoke detectors. Ionization detectors respond more

quickly to flaming fires with smaller combustion particles,

while photoelectric detectors respond more quickly to

smoldering fires. Detectors can be damaged by steam or high

temperatures. Photoelectric detectors are more expensive

than ionization detectors and are more sensitive to minute

smoke particles. However, ionization detectors have a

degree of built-in security not inherent to photoelectric

detectors. When the battery starts to fail in an ionization

detector, the ion current falls and the alarm sounds,

warning that it is time to change the battery before the

detector becomes ineffective. Backup batteries may be used

for photoelectric detectors that are operated using the

home’s electrical system. 

According to USFA [14], a properly functioning smoke

alarm diminishes the risk for dying in a fire by

approximately 50% and is considered the single most

important means of preventing house and apartment fire

fatalities. Proper installation and maintenance, however,

are key to their usefulness. Figure 2.2 shows a typical smoke

alarm being tested. 

Following are key issues regarding installation and

maintenance of smoke alarms. (Smoke alarms should be

installed on every level of the home including the

basement, both inside and outside the sleeping area.)

• Smoke alarms should be installed on the ceiling or

6–8 inches below the ceiling on side walls.

• Battery replacement is imperative to ensuring proper

operation. Typically, batteries should be replaced at

least once a year, although some units are

manufactured with a 10-year battery. A “chirping”

noise from the unit indicates the need for battery

replacement. A battery-operated smoke alarm has a

life expectancy of 8 to 10 years. 

• Battery replacement is not necessary in units that

are connected to the household electrical system.

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-7
• Regardless of the type, it is crucial to test every smoke

alarm monthly. Data from HSC [13] revealed that

only 83% of individuals with fire alarms test them

at least once a year; while only 19% of households

with at least one smoke alarm test them quarterly.

A second element impacting escape from a building is a

properly installed fire-suppression system. According to USFA

[14], sprinkler systems began to be used over 100 years ago in

New England textile mills. Currently, few homes are protected

by residential sprinkler systems. However, UL-listed home

systems are available and are designed to protect homes much

faster than standard commercial or industrial sprinklers. Based

on approximately 1% of the total building price in new

construction, sprinkler systems can be installed for a

reasonable price. These systems can be retrofitted to

existing construction and are smaller than commercial

systems. In addition, homeowner insurance discounts for

such systems range between 5% and 15% and are

increasing in availability.

The final element in escaping from a residential fire is having a

fire plan. A 1999 survey conducted by USFA [14] found

that 60% of Americans have an escape plan, with 42% of

these individuals having practiced the plan. Surprisingly,

26% of Americans stated they had never thought about

practicing an escape plan, and 3% believed escape

planning to be unnecessary. In addition, of the people

who had a smoke alarm sound an alert over the past year

before the study, only 8% believed it to be a fire and

thought they should evacuate the building. 

Protection from electrical shocks and burns is also a vital

element in the overall safety of the home. According to

the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) [17],

electrical distribution equipment was the third-leading

cause of home fires and the second-leading cause of fire

deaths in the United States between 1994 and 1998.

Specifically, NFPA reported that 38,300 home electrical

fires occurred in 1998, which resulted in 284 deaths,

1,184 injuries, and approximately $670 million in direct

property damage. The same report indicated that the

leading cause of electrical distribution fires was ground

fault or short-circuit problems. A third of the home

electrical distribution fires were a result of problems with

fixed wiring, while cords and plugs were responsible for

17% of these fires and 28% of the deaths.

Additional investigation of these statistics reveals that

electrical fires are one of the leading types of home fires in

manufactured homes. USFA [14] data demonstrate that

many electrical fires in homes are associated with

improper installation of electrical devices by do-ityourselfers. Errors attributed to this amateur electrical

work include use of improperly rated devices such as

switches or receptacles and loose connections leading to

overheating and arcing, resulting in fires. Recommendations

to reduce the risk of electrical fires and electrocution

include the following:

1. Use only the correct fuse size and do not use

pennies behind a fuse.

2. Install ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) on

all outlets in kitchens, bathrooms, and anywhere

else near water. This can also be accomplished by

installing a GFCI in the breaker box, thus

protecting an entire circuit.

3. Never place combustible materials near light

fixtures, especially halogen bulbs that get very hot.

4. Use only the correct bulb size in a light fixture.

5. Use only properly rated extension cords for the

job needed.

6. Never use extension cords as a long-term solution

to the need for an additional outlet. Size the

extension cord to the wattage to be used.

7. Never run extension cords inside walls or under

rugs because they generate heat that must be able

to dissipate. 

2-8 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing

Figure 2.2. Smoke Alarm Testing

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fire Extinguishers

A fire extinguisher should be listed and labeled by an

independent testing laboratory such as FM (Factory

Mutual) or UL. Fire extinguishers are labeled according to

the type of fire on which they may be used. Fires involving

wood or cloth, flammable liquids, electrical, or metal sources

react differently to extinguishers. Using the wrong type of

extinguisher on a fire could be dangerous and could worsen

the fire. Traditionally, the labels A, B, C, and D have been

used to indicate the type of fire on which an extinguisher

is to be used. 

Type A—Used for ordinary combustibles such as cloth,

wood, rubber, and many plastics. These types of fire

usually leave ashes after they burn: Type A extinguishers

for ashes. The Type A label is in a triangle on the

extinguisher.

Type B—Used for flammable liquid fires such as oil,

gasoline, paints, lacquers, grease, and solvents. These

substances often come in barrels: Type B extinguishers for

barrels. The Type B label is in a square on the

extinguisher.

Type C—Used for electrical fires such as in wiring, fuse boxes,

energized electrical equipment, and other electrical sources.

Electricity travels in currents; Type C extinguishers for

currents. The Type C label is in a circle on the

extinguisher.

Type D—Used for metal fires such as magnesium,

titanium, and sodium. These types of fires are very dangerous

and seldom handled by the general public; Type D means

don’t get involved. The Type D label is in a star on the

extinguisher.

The higher the rating number on an A or B fire extinguisher,

the more fire it can put out, but high-rated units are often

the heavier models. Extinguishers need care and must be

recharged after every use—a partially used unit might as

well be empty. An extinguisher should be placed in the

kitchen and in the garage or workshop. Each extinguisher

should be installed in plain view near an escape route and

away from potential fire hazards such as heating appliances.

Recently, pictograms have come into use on fire extinguishers.

These picture the type of fire on which an extinguisher is

to be used. For instance, a Type A extinguisher has a

pictogram showing burning wood. A Type C extinguisher has 

a pictogram showing an electrical cord and outlet. These

pictograms are also used to show what not to use. For

example, a Type A extinguisher also show a pictogram of

an electrical cord and outlet with a slash through it (do not

use it on an electrical fire).

Fire extinguishers also have a number rating. For Type A

fires, 1 means 11⁄4 gallons of water; 2 means 21⁄2 gallons of

water, 3 means 33⁄4 gallons of water, etc. For Type B and

Type C fires, the number represents square feet. For example,

2 equals 2 square feet, 5 equals 5 square feet, etc. 

Fire extinguishers can also be made to extinguish more

than one type of fire. For example, you might have an

extinguisher with a label that reads 2A5B. This would

mean this extinguisher is good for Type A fires with a

21⁄2-gallon equivalence and it is also good for Type B fires

with a 5-square-foot equivalency. A good extinguisher to

have in each residential kitchen is a 2A10BC fire extinguisher.

You might also get a Type A for the living room and

bedrooms and an ABC for the basement and garage. 

PASS is a simple acronym to remind you how to operate most

fire extinguishers—pull, aim, squeeze, and sweep. Pull the

pin at the top of the cylinder. Some units require the

releasing of a lock latch or pressing a puncture lever. Aim

the nozzle at the base of the fire. Squeeze or press the

handle. Sweep the contents from side to side at the base

of the fire until it goes out. Shut off the extinguisher and

then watch carefully for any rekindling of the fire.

Protection Against Toxic Gases

Protection against gas poisoning has been a problem since

the use of fossil fuels was combined with relatively tight

housing construction. NFPA [17] notes that National

Safety Council statistics reflect unintentional poisonings

by gas or vapors, chiefly carbon monoxide (CO),

numbering about 600 in 1998. One-fourth of these

involved heating or cooking equipment in the home. The

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission [18] states

that in 2001 an estimated 130 deaths occurred as a result

of CO poisoning from residential sources; this decrease in

deaths is related to the increased use of CO detectors. In

addition, approximately 10,000 cases of CO-related injuries

occur each year. NFPA [17] also notes that, similar to fire

deaths, unintentional CO deaths are highest for ages 4 years

and under and ages 75 years and older. Additional information

about home CO monitoring can be found in Chapter 5. 

References

1. Ehlers VE, Steel EW. Municipal and rural

sanitation. Sixth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill

Book Company; 1965. p. 462–4.

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-9
2. National Institute on Aging. Hyperthermia—too

hot for your health, fact sheet health information.

Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and

Human Services; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.niapublications.org/engagepages/

hyperther.asp.

3. US Census Bureau. Historical census of housing

tables—house heating fuel. Washington, DC: US

Census Bureau; 2002. Available from URL:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/

census/historic/fuels.html.

4. Zilber SA. Review of health effects of indoor

lighting. Architronic 1993;2(3). Available from URL:

http://architronic.saed.kent.edu/v2n3/v2n3.06.html.

5. US Environmental Protection Agency.

Information on levels of environmental noise

requisite to protect public health and welfare with

an adequate margin of safety. Washington, DC: US

Environmental Protection Agency; 1974.

6. Public Health, England and Wales. The Household

Appliances (Noise Emission) Regulations 1990.

London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; 1990.

7. American Speech-Language-Hearing-Association.

Noise: noise is difficult to define. Rockville, MD:

American Speech-Language-Hearing-Association;

2003. Available from URL: http://www.asha.org/ 

public/hearing/disorders/noise.htm.

8. US Environmental Protection Agency. Factoids:

drinking water and ground water statistics for

2002. Washington, DC: US Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Ground Water and

Drinking Water; January 2003. Available from URL:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater.

9. Hinrichsen D, Robey B, Upadhyay UD. The health

dimension. In: Solutions for a water-short world.

Population Report, Series M, No. 14. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Population

Information Program; 1998. Available from URL:

http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m14/m14chap5.shtml

10. US Census Bureau. Historical census of housing

tables—plumbing facilities, 2002. Washington,

DC: US Census Bureau; 2003. Available from URL:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/

historic/plumbing.html.

11. US Census Bureau. Historical census of housing

tables—crowded and severely crowded housing

units, 2002. Washington, DC: US Census

Bureau; 2003. Available from URL:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/ www/housing/ 

census/historic/crowding.html.

12. International Code Council. Fact sheet. Falls

Church, VA: International Code Council; no date.

Available from URL: http://www.iccsafe.org/news/pdf/

factssheet.pdf.

13. Home Safety Council. The state of home safety in

America—executive summary. Washington, DC:

The Home Safety Council; 2002.

14. US Fire Administration. Welcome to the U.S. Fire

Administration (USFA) Web site. Washington,

DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Department of Homeland Security; 2003.

Available from URL: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/.

15. US Environmental Protection Agency. Smoke

detectors and radiation. Washington, DC: US

Environmental Protection Agency; 2003. Available

from URL: http://www.epa.gov/

radiation/sources/smoke_alarm.htm.

16. Helmenstein AM. How do smoke detectors work?

Photoelectric & ionization smoke detectors, what

you need to know about chemistry. New York:

About, Inc.; 2003. Available from URL:

http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/

aa071401a.htm.

17. National Fire Protection Association. NFPA fact

sheets—electrical safety. Quincy, MA: National

Fire Protection Association; 2003. Available from

URL: http://www.nfpa.org/Research/

NFPAFactSheets/Electrical/electrical.asp.

18. US Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Nonfire carbon monoxide deaths: 2001 annual

estimate. Washington, DC: US Consumer

Product Safety Commission; 2004. Available from

URL: http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/co04.pdf.

2-10 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing
Additional Sources of Information 

Barbalace RC. Environmental justice and the NIMBY

principle. Environmental Chemistry.com: Environmental,

Chemistry, and Hazardous Materials Information and

Resources. Portland, ME; no date. Available from URL:

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/

nimby.html.

Bryant B. The role of SNRE in the environmental justice

movement. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1997.

Available from URL: http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/

history.html.

Bullard RD. Waste and racism: a stacked deck? Forum

Appl Res Public Pol spring 1993.

National Institute on Aging. Hypothermia: a cold weather

hazard, fact sheet health information. Bethesda, MD: US

Department of Health and Human Services; 2001.

Available from URL: http://www.niapublications.org/

engagepages/ hypother.asp.

National Weather Service. Natural hazard statistics; no

date. Silver Spring, MD: National Weather Service.

Available from URL: http://www.nws.noaa.gov/

om/hazstats.shtml.

US Census Bureau. New residential construction

(building permits, housing starts, and housing

completions). Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; no

date. Available from URL:

http://www.census.gov/newresconst.

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 2-11
2-12 Basic Principles of Healthy Housing
“The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the

force of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the

wind may blow through it—the storm may enter, the rain

may enter—but the King of England cannot enter—all his

force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

William Pitt, March 1763

Introduction

William Pitt, arguing before the British Parliament against

excise officers entering private homes to levy the Cyder

Tax, eloquently articulated this long-held and cherished

notion of the sanctity of private property. However, a

person’s right to privacy is not absolute. There has always

been a tension between the rights of property owners to do

whatever they desire with their property and the ability of

the government to regulate uses to protect the safety,

health, and welfare of the community. Few, however,

would argue with the right and duty of a city government

to prohibit the operation of a munitions factory or a

chemical plant in the middle of a crowded residential

neighborhood. 

History 

The first known housing laws are in the Code of Laws of

Hammurabi [1], who was the King of Babylonia, circa

1792–1750 BC. These laws addressed the responsibility of the

home builder to construct a quality home and outlined the

implications to the builder if injury or harm came to the

owner as a result of the failure to do so. During the Puritan

period (about 1620–1690), housing laws essentially

governed the behavior of the members of the society. For

example, no one was allowed to live alone, so bachelors,

widows, and widowers were placed with other families as

servants or boarders. In 1652, Boston prohibited building

privies within 12 feet of the street. Around the turn of the

18th century, some New England communities

implemented local ordinances that specified the size of

houses. During the 17th century, additional public policies

on housing were established. Because the English tradition

of using wooden chimneys and thatched roofs led to fires

in many dwellings, several colonies passed regulations

prohibiting them. 

After the early 17th century came an era of very rapid

metropolitan growth along the East Coast. This growth

was due largely to immigration from Europe and was

spurred by the Industrial Revolution. The most serious

housing problems began in New York about 1840 when

the first tenements were built. In 1867, a report by the

New York Metropolitan Board of Health on living

conditions in tenements convinced the New York State

legislature to pass the Tenement Housing Act of 1867 [2].

The principal requirements of the act included the

following: 

• Every room occupied for sleeping, if it does not

communicate directly with the external air, must

have a ventilating or transom window of at least

3 square feet to the neighboring room or hall.

• A proper fire escape is necessary on every tenement

or lodging house.

• The roof is to be kept in repair and the stairs are to

have banisters.

• At least one toilet is required for every

20 occupants for all such houses, and those toilets

must be connected to approved disposal systems.

• Cleansing of every lodging house is to be to the

satisfaction of the Board of Health, which is to have

access at any time. 

• All cases of infectious disease are to be reported to

the Board by the owner or his agent; buildings are

to be inspected and, if necessary, disinfected or

vacated if found to be out of repair.

There were also regulations governing distances between

buildings, heights of rooms, and dimensions of windows.

Although this act had some beneficial influences on

overcrowding, sewage disposal, lighting, and ventilation,

perhaps its greatest contribution was in laying a foundation

for more stringent future legislation.

Jacob A. Riis, a Danish immigrant and a police reporter on

New York’s Lower East Side, published a book titled How

the Other Half Lives—Studies Among the Tenements of New

York [3], which swayed public opinion in the direction of

housing reform and resulted in the Tenement House Act of

1901. The basic principles established in the Tenement

House Act of 1901 still underlie much of the housing

efforts in New York City today [4]. Since 1909, with the

establishment of the Philadelphia Housing Association, that city

has had almost continual inspection and improvement.

Chicago enacted housing legislation as early as 1889 and

Chapter 3: Housing Regulations

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-1
health legislation as early as 1881. Regulations on

ventilation, light, drainage, and plumbing were put into

effect in 1896. 

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 with 200,000 or more inhabitants.

Congress appropriated only $20,000 (roughly equal to

$390,000 in 2003) to cover the expenses of this project,

which limited the number of investigations. 

No significant housing legislation was passed in the

20th century until 1929 [5], when the New York State

legislature passed its Multiple Dwelling Law. Other cities

and states followed New York’s example and permitted

less strict requirements in their codes. This decreased

what little emphasis there was on enforcement.

Conditions declined until, by the 1930s, President

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s shocking report to the people was

“that one-third of the nation is ill-fed, ill-housed, and illclothed.” In response to the overwhelming loss of homes

during the Great Depression, Congress passed the United

States Housing Act of 1937, which created the United

States Housing Authority (USHA). This act subsidized

construction of new public housing units and required

the elimination of at least an equivalent number of units

from the local housing supply that were determined to be

inferior. In 1942, the USHA was renamed the Federal

Public Housing Administration and, in 1947, was

renamed the Public Housing Administration. 

The federal government not only encouraged the

construction of public housing, but took on the role of

financing private housing. In 1938, the Federal National

Mortgage Association was created. (Fannie Mae became a

private organization in 1968 [6].) Its purpose was to

provide a secondary market for the FHA, created in 1934,

and Veterans Administration (VA) mortgage loans. The

Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, also known as

the GI Bill of Rights, created a VA loan program

guaranteeing home mortgage loans for veterans. This

legislation, in conjunction with the FHA loan program,

was the impetus for initiating the huge program of home

construction and subsequent suburban growth following

World War II. In 1946, the Farmers Home Administration,

housed in the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA), was created to make loans and grants for

constructing and repairing farm homes and assisting rural

self-help housing groups.

The Housing Act of 1949 allowed “primarily residential”

and “blighted” urban areas to be condemned, cleared of

buildings, and sold for private development. In addition

to assisting in slum clearance, this act also provided for

additional public housing and authorized the USDA to

provide farmers with loans to construct, improve, repair

or replace dwellings to provide decent, safe, and sanitary

living conditions for themselves, their tenants, lessees,

sharecroppers, and laborers. 

Because the many housing responsibilities administered

by various agencies within the federal government proved

unwieldy, the Housing and Urban Development Act was

passed in 1965. The U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) was created to centralize the

responsibilities of the Housing and Home Finance Agency

and incorporated the FHA, the Federal National

Mortgage Association, the Public Housing Administration,

Urban Development Administration, and the Community

Facilities Administration. 

Zoning, Housing Codes, and Building Codes

Housing is inextricably linked to the land on which it is

located. Changes in the patterns of land use in the United

States, shifting demographics, an awareness of the need

for environmental stewardship, and competing uses for

increasingly scarce (desirable) land have all placed added

stress on the traditional relationship between the property

owner and the community. This is certainly not a new

development. 

In the early settlement of this country, following the precedent

set by their forefathers from Great Britain, gunpowder

mills and storehouses were prohibited from the heavily

populated portions of towns, owing to the frequent fires and

explosions. Later, zoning took the form of fire districts

and, under implied legislative powers, wooden buildings

were prohibited from certain sections of a municipality.

Massachusetts passed one of the first zoning laws in 1692.

This law authorized Boston, Salem, Charlestown, and

certain other market towns in the province to restrict the

establishment of slaughterhouses and stillhouses for

currying leather to certain locations in each town.

Few people objected to such restrictions. Still, the tension

remained between the right to use one’s land and the

community’s right to protect its citizens. In 1926, the

United States Supreme Court took up the issue in Village

of Euclid, Ohio, v. Ambler Realty [7]. In this decision,

the Court noted,

3-2 Housing Regulations
“Until recent years, urban life was comparatively

simple; but with great increase and concentration of

population, problems have developed which require

additional restrictions in respect of the use and

occupation of private lands in urban communities.”

In explaining its reasoning, the Court said, 

“the law of nuisances may be consulted not for the

purpose of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its

analogies in the process of ascertaining the scope of the

police power. Thus the question of whether the

power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a

particular kind or a particular use is to be

determined, not by an abstract consideration of the

building or other thing considered apart, but by

considering it in connection with the circumstances

and the locality... A nuisance may be merely the

right thing in the wrong place—like a pig in the

parlor instead of the barnyard.”

Zoning, housing, and building codes were adopted to improve

the health and safety of people living in communities.

And, to some extent, they have performed this function.

Certainly, housing and building codes, when enforced,

have resulted in better constructed and maintained

buildings. Zoning codes have been effective in

segregating noxious and dangerous enterprises from

residential areas. However, as the U.S. population has

grown and changed from a rural to an urban then to a

suburban society, land use and building regulations

developed for the 19th and early 20th centuries are

creating new health and safety problems not envisioned in

earlier times. 

Zoning and Zoning Ordinances

Zoning is essentially a means of ensuring that a community’s

land uses are compatible with the health, safety, and

general welfare of the community. Experience has shown

that some types of controls are needed to provide orderly

growth in relation to the community plan for development.

Just as a capital improvement program governs public

improvements such as streets, parks and other recreational

facilities, schools, and public buildings, so zoning governs

the planning program with respect to the use of public

and private property.

It is very important that housing inspectors know the general

nature of zoning regulations because properties in

violation of both the housing code and the zoning ordinance

must be brought into full compliance with the zoning

ordinance before the housing code can be enforced. In

many cases, the housing inspector may be able to

eliminate violations or properties in violation of housing

codes through enforcement of the zoning ordinance.

Zoning Objectives

As stated earlier, the purpose of a zoning ordinance is to

ensure that the land uses within a community are

regulated not only for the health, safety, and welfare of the

community, but also are in keeping with the

comprehensive plan for community development. The

provisions in a zoning ordinance that help to achieve

development that provides for health, safety, and welfare

are designed to do the following:

• Regulate height, bulk, and area of structure. To

provide established standards for healthful housing

within the community, regulations dealing with

building heights, lot coverage, and floor areas must

be established. These regulations then ensure that

adequate natural lighting, ventilation, privacy, and

recreational areas for children will be realized.

These are all fundamental physiologic needs

necessary for a healthful environment. Safety from

fires is enhanced by separating buildings to meet

yard and open-space requirements. Through

requiring a minimum lot area per dwelling unit,

population density controls are established.

• Avoid undue levels of noise, vibration, glare, air

pollution, and odor. By providing land-use

category districts, these environmental stresses upon

the individual can be reduced. 

• Lessen street congestion by requiring off-street

parking and off-street loading.

• Facilitate adequate provision of water, sewerage,

schools, parks, and playgrounds.

• Provide safety from flooding.

• Conserve property values. Through careful

enforcement of the zoning ordinance provisions,

property values can be stabilized and conserved.

To understand more fully the difference between zoning

and subdivision regulations, building codes, and housing

ordinances, the housing inspector must know what cannot

be accomplished by a zoning ordinance. Items that

cannot be accomplished by a zoning ordinance include

the following: 

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-3
• Overcrowding or substandard housing. Zoning

is not retroactive and cannot correct existing

conditions. These are corrected through

enforcement of a minimum standards housing code.

• Materials and methods of construction. Materials

and methods of construction are enforced through

building codes rather than through zoning.

• Cost of construction. Quality of construction,

and hence construction costs, are often regulated

through deed restrictions or covenants. Zoning

does, however, stabilize property values in an area

by prohibiting incompatible development, such as

heavy industry in the midst of a well-established

subdivision.

• Subdivision design and layout. Design and layout

of subdivisions, as well as provisions for parks and

streets, are controlled through subdivision

regulations. 

Content of the Zoning Ordinance 

Zoning ordinances establish districts of whatever size,

shape, and number the municipality deems best for

carrying out the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Most

cities use three major districts: residential (R), commercial

(C), and industrial (I). These three may then be

subdivided into many subdistricts, depending on local

conditions; e.g., R-1 (single-unit dwellings), R-2

(duplexes), R-3 (low-rise apartment buildings), and so on.

These districts specify the principal and accessory uses,

exceptions, and prohibitions [8].

In general, permitted land uses are based on the intensity

of land use—a less intense land use being permitted in a

more intense district, but not vice versa. For example, a

single-unit residence is a less intense land use than a multiunit

dwelling (defined by HUD as more than four living

units) and hence would be permitted in a residential

district zoned for more intense land use (e.g., R-3). A

multiunit dwelling would not, however, be permitted in

an R-1 district. While intended to promote the health,

safety, and general welfare of the community, housing

trends in the last half of the 20th century have led a

number of public health and planning officials to

question the blind enforcement of zoning districts. These

individuals, citing such problems as urban sprawl, have

stated that municipalities need to adopt a more flexible

approach to land use regulation—one that encourages

creating mixed-use spaces, increasing population densities,

and reducing reliance on the automobile. 

These initiatives are often called smart growth programs.

It is imperative, if this approach is taken, that both

governmental officials and citizens be involved in the

planning stage. Without this involvement, the community

may end up with major problems, such as overloaded

infrastructure, structures of inappropriate construction

crowded together, and fire and security issues for

residents. Increased density could strain the existing water,

sewer and waste collection systems, as well as fire and

police services, unless proper planning is implemented. 

In recent years, some ordinances have been partially based

on performance standards rather than solely on land-use

intensity. For example, some types of industrial developments

may be permitted in a less intense use district provided

that the proposed land use creates no noise, glare, smoke,

dust, vibration, or other environmental stress exceeding

acceptable standards and provided further that adequate

off-street parking, screening, landscaping, and similar

measures are taken.

Bulk and Height Requirements. Most early zoning

ordinances stated that, within a particular district, the

height and bulk of any structure could not exceed certain

dimensions and specified dimensions for front, side, and

rear yards. Another approach was to use floor-area ratios

for regulation. A floor-area ratio is the relation between

the floor space of the structure and the size of the lot on

which it is located. For example, a floor-area ratio of

1 would permit either a two-story building covering 50%

of the lot, or a one-story building covering 100% of the lot, as

demonstrated in Figure 3.1. Other zoning ordinances

specify the maximum amount of the lot that can be

covered or merely require that a certain amount of open

space must be provided for each structure, and leave the

builder the flexibility to determine the location of the

structure. Still other ordinances, rather than specify a

particular height for the structure, specify the angle of

light obstruction that will assure adequate air and light to

the surrounding structures, as demonstrated in Figure 3.2.

Yard Requirements. Zoning ordinances also contain

minimum requirements for front, rear, and side yards. These

requirements, in addition to stating the lot dimensions,

usually designate the amount of setback required. Most

ordinances permit the erection of auxiliary buildings in

rear yards provided that they are located at stated

distances from all lot lines and provided sufficient open

space is maintained. If the property is a corner lot,

additional requirements are established to allow visibility

for motorists.

3-4 Housing Regulations
Off-street Parking. Space for off-street parking and offstreet loading, especially for commercial buildings, is also

contained in zoning ordinances. These requirements are

based on the relationship of floor space or seating capacity

to land use. For example, a furniture store would require

fewer off-street parking spaces in relation to the floor area

than would a movie theater. 

Exceptions to the Zoning Code

Nonconforming Uses

Because zoning is not retroactive, all zoning ordinances

contain a provision for nonconforming uses. If a use has

already been established within a particular district before the

adoption of the ordinance, it must be permitted to

continue, unless it can be shown to be a public nuisance. 

Provisions are, however, put into the ordinance to aid in

eliminating nonconforming uses over time. These

provisions generally prohibit a) an enlargement or

expansion of the nonconforming use, b) reconstruction of

the nonconforming use if more than a certain portion of

the building should be destroyed, c) resumption of the

use after it has been abandoned for a period of specified

time, and d) changing the use to a higher classification or to

another nonconforming use. Some zoning ordinances

further provide a period of amortization during which

nonconforming land use must be phased out.

Variances 

Zoning ordinances contain provisions for permitting

variances and providing a method for granting these

variances, subject to certain specified provisions. A

variance may be granted when, owing to the specific conditions

or use of a particular lot, an undue hardship would be

imposed on the owner if the exact content of the

ordinance is enforced. A variance may be granted due to

the shape, topography, or other characteristic of the lot.

For example, suppose an irregularly shaped lot is located

in a district having a side yard requirement of 20 feet on a

side and a total lot size requirement of 10,000 square feet.

Further suppose that this lot contains 10,200 square feet

(and thus meets the total size requirement); however, due

to the irregular shape of the lot, there would be sufficient

space for only a 15-foot side yard. Because a hardship

would be imposed on the owner if the exact letter of the

law is applied, the owner of the property could apply to

the zoning adjustment board for a variance. Because the

total area of the lot is sufficient and a lessening of the

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-5

Figure 3.1. Example of a Floor Area

Figure 3.2. Example of an Angle of Light Obstruction
ordinance requirements would not be detrimental to the

surrounding property, nor would it interfere with neighboring

properties, a variance would probably be granted. Note

that a variance is granted to the owner under specific

conditions. Should use of the property change, the

variance would be voided.

Exceptions

An exception is often confused with a variance. In every

city there are some necessary uses that do not correspond

to the permitted land uses within the district. The zoning

code recognizes, however, that if proper safeguards are

provided, these uses would not have a detrimental effect

on the district. An example would be a fire station that

could be permitted in a residential area, provided the

station house is designed and the property is properly

landscaped to resemble or fit in with the characteristics of the

neighborhood in which it is located. 

Administration

Zoning inspectors are essential to the zoning process

because they have firsthand knowledge of a case. Often,

the zoning inspector may also be the building inspector or

housing inspector. Because the building inspector or

housing inspector is already in the field making

inspections, it is relatively easy for that individual to

check compliance with the zoning ordinances. Compliance

is determined by comparing the actual land use with that

allowed for the area and shown on the zoning map.

Each zoning ordinance has a map detailing the permitted

usage for each block. Using a copy of this map, the

inspector can make a preliminary check of the land use in

the field. If the use does not conform, the inspector must

then contact the Zoning Board to see whether the property in

question was a nonconforming use at the time of the

passage of the ordinance and whether an exception or variance

has been granted. In cities where up-to-date records are

maintained, the inspector can check the use in the field.

When a violation is observed, and the property owners

are duly notified of the violation, they have the right to

request a hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment

(also called the Zoning Board of Appeals in some cities).

The board may uphold the zoning enforcement officer or

may rule in favor of the property owner. If the action of

the zoning officer is upheld, the property owner may, if

desired, seek relief by appealing the decision to the courts;

otherwise, the violation must be corrected to conform to

the zoning code.

It is critical for the housing or building inspector and the

zoning inspector to work closely in municipalities where

these positions and responsibilities are separate. Experience

has shown that illegally converted properties are often

among the most substandard encountered in the municipality

and often contain especially dangerous housing code violations.

In communities where the zoning code is enforced effectively,

the resulting zoning compliance helps to advance, as well

as sustain, many of the minimum standards of the

housing code such as occupancy, ventilation, light, and

unimpeded egress. By the same token, building or

housing inspectors can often aid the zoning inspector by

helping eliminate some nonconforming uses through code

enforcement.

Housing Codes

A housing code, regardless of who promulgates it, is basically

an environmental health protection code. Housing codes

are distinguished from building codes in that they cover

houses, not buildings in general. For example, the housing

code requires that walls support the weight of the roof,

any floors above, and the furnishings, occupants, etc.,

within a building. 

Early housing codes primarily protected only physical health;

hence, they were enforced only in slum areas. In the

1970s, it was realized that, if urban blight and its associated

human suffering were to be controlled, housing codes

must consider both physical and mental health and must

be administered uniformly throughout the community.

In preparing or revising housing codes, local officials must

maintain a level of standards that will not merely be

minimal. Standards should maintain a living environment

that contributes positively to healthful individual and

family living. The fact that a small portion of housing

fails to meet a desirable standard is not a legitimate reason

for retrogressive modification or abolition of a standard.

The adoption of a housing ordinance that establishes low

standards for existing housing serves only to legalize and

perpetuate an unhealthy living environment. Wherever

local conditions are such that immediate enforcement of

some standards within the code would cause undue

hardship for some individuals, it is better to allow some

time for compliance than to eliminate an otherwise

satisfactory standard. When immediate health or safety

hazards are not involved, it is often wise to attempt to

create a reasonable timetable for accomplishing necessary

code modifications.

3-6 Housing Regulations
History

To assist municipalities with developing legislation necessary

to regulate the quality of housing, the American Public

Health Association (APHA) Committee on the Hygiene

of Housing prepared and published in 1952 a proposed

housing ordinance. This provided a prototype on which

such legislation might be based and has served as the

basis for countless housing codes enacted in the United

States since that time. Some municipalities enacted it without

change. Others made revisions by omitting some portions,

modifying others, and sometimes adding new provisions [9].

The APHA ordinance was revised in 1969 and 1971. In 1975,

APHA and the CDC jointly undertook the job of

rewriting and updating this model ordinance. The new

ordinance was entitled the APHA-CDC Recommended

Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance [10]. The

most recent model ordinance was published by APHA in

1986 as Housing and Health: APHA-CDC Recommended

Minimum Housing Standards [11]. This new ordinance is

one of several model ordinances available to communities

when they are interested in adopting a housing code.

A community should read and consider each element

within the model code to determine its applicability to

their community. A housing code is merely a means to an

end. The end is the eventual elimination of all substandard

conditions within the home and the neighborhood. This end

cannot be achieved if the community adopts an

inadequate housing code.

Objectives

The Housing Act of 1949 [12] gave new impetus to

existing local, state, and federal housing programs

directed toward eliminating poor housing. In passing

this legislation, Congress defined a new national

objective by declaring that “the general welfare and

security of the nation and the health and living

standards of its people...require a decent home and a

suitable living environment for every American family.”

This mandate generated an awareness that the quality of

housing and residential environment has an enormous

influence upon the physical and mental health and the

social well-being of each individual and, in turn, on the

economic, political, and social conditions in every

community. Consequently, public agencies, units of

government, professional organizations and others sought

ways to ensure that the quality of housing and the

residential environment did not deteriorate.

It soon became apparent that ordinances regulating the

supplied utilities and the maintenance and occupancy of

dwellings were needed. Commonly called housing codes,

these ordinances establish minimum standards to make

dwellings safe, sanitary, and fit for human habitation by

governing their condition and maintenance, their

supplied utilities and facilities, and their occupancy. The

2003 International Code Council (ICC) [13,14]

International Residential Code-One- and Two-Family

Dwellings (R101.3) states 

“the purpose of this code is to provide minimum

requirements to safeguard the public safety, health

and general welfare, through affordability, structural

strength, means of egress, facilities, stability, sanitation,

light and ventilation, energy conservation, safety to

fire and property from fire and other hazards

attributed to the built environment.”

Critical Requirements of an Effective Housing Program

A housing code is limited in its effectiveness by several

factors. First, if the housing code does not contain standards

that adequately protect the health and well-being of the

individuals, it cannot be effective. The best-trained

housing inspector, if not armed with an adequate housing

code, can accomplish little good in the battle against

urban blight.

A second issue in establishing an effective housing code is

the need to establish a baseline of current housing conditions.

A systems approach requires that you establish where you

are, where you are going, and how you plan to achieve your

goals. In using a systems approach, it is essential to know

where the program started so that the success or failure of

various initiatives can be established. Without this

information, success cannot be replicated, because you

cannot identify the obstacles navigated nor the elements

of success. Many initiatives fail because program

administrators are without the necessary proof of success

when facing funding shortfalls and budget cuts.

A third factor affecting the quality of housing codes is

budget. Without adequate funds and personnel, the

community can expect to lose the battle against urban

blight. It is only through a systematic enforcement effort

by an adequately sized staff of properly trained inspectors

that the battle can be won.

A fourth factor is the attitude of the political bodies

within the area. A properly administered housing program

will require upgrading substandard housing throughout the

community. Frequently, this results in political pressures

being exerted to prevent the enforcement of the code in

certain areas of the city. If the housing effort is backed

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-7
properly by all political elements, blight can be controlled

and eventually eliminated within the community. If, however,

the housing program is not permitted to choke out the

spreading influence of substandard conditions, urban

blight will spread like a cancer, engulfing greater and

greater portions of the city. Similarly, an effort directed at

only the most seriously blighted blocks in the city will

upgrade merely those blocks, while the blight spreads

elsewhere. If urban blight is to be controlled, it must be

cut out in its entirety.

A fifth element that limits housing programs is whether

they are supported fully by the other departments within

the city. Regardless of which city agency administers the

housing program, other city agencies must support the

activities of the housing program. In addition, great effort

should be expended to obtain the support and

cooperation of the community. This can be accomplished

through public awareness and public information

programs, which can result in considerable support or

considerable resistance to the efforts of the program.

A sixth limitation is an inadequately or improperly

trained inspection staff. Inspectors should be capable of

evaluating whether a serious or a minor problem exists in

matters ranging from the structural stability of a building

to the health and sanitary aspects of the structure. If they

do not have the authority or expertise, they should

develop that expertise or establish effective and efficient

agreements with overlapping agencies to ensure timely

and appropriate response. 

A seventh item that frequently restricts the effectiveness of

a housing program is the fact that many housing groups

fail to do a complete job of evaluating housing

problems. The deterioration of an area may be due to

factors such as housing affordability, tax rates, or issues

related to investment cost and return. In many cases, the

inspection effort is restricted to merely evaluating the

conditions that exist, with little or no thought given to

why these conditions exist. If a housing effort is to be

successful, as part of a systems approach, the question of

why the homes deteriorated must be considered. Was

it because of environmental stresses within the

neighborhood that need to be eliminated or was it

because of apathy on the part of the occupants? In either

case, if the causative agent is not removed, then the

inspector faces an annual problem of maintaining the

quality of that residence. It is only by eliminating the

causes of deterioration that the quality of the

neighborhood can be maintained. Often the regulatory

authority does not have adequate authority within the

enabling legislation of the code needed to resolve the

problem or there are gaps in jurisdiction.

Content of a Housing Code

Although all comprehensive housing codes or ordinances

contain a number of common elements, the provisions of

communities will usually vary. These variations stem from

differences in local policies, preferences, and, to a lesser

extent, needs. They are also influenced by the standards

set by the related provisions of the diverse building,

electrical, and plumbing codes in use in the municipality.

Within any housing code there are generally five features: 

1. Definitions of terms used in the code. 

2. Administrative provisions showing who is

authorized to administer the code and the basic

methods and procedures that must be followed in

implementing and enforcing the sections of the

code. Administrative provisions deal with items

such as reasonable hours of inspections, whether

serving violation notices is required, how to notify

absentee owners or resident-owners or tenants, how to

process and conduct hearings, what rules to follow

in processing dwellings alleged to be unfit for

human habitation, and how to occupy or use

dwellings finally declared fit.

3. Substantive provisions specifying the various types

of health, building, electrical, heating, plumbing,

maintenance, occupancy, and use conditions that

constitute violations of the housing code. These

provisions can be and often are grouped into three

categories: minimum facilities and equipment for

dwelling units; adequate maintenance of dwellings

and dwelling units, as well as their facilities and

equipment; and occupancy conditions of dwellings

and dwelling units.

4. Court and penalty sections outlining the basis for

court action and thepenalty or penalties to which

the alleged violator will be subjected if proved

guilty of violating one or more provisions of the code.

5. Enabling, conflict, and unconstitutionality

clauses providing the date a new or amended code

will take effect, prevalence of more stringent

provision when there is a conflict of two codes,

severability of any part of the ordinance that

might be found unconstitutional, and retention of

all other parts in full course and effect. In any city

3-8 Housing Regulations
following the format of the APHA-CDC Recommended

Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance

[10] the housing officer or other supervisor in

charge of housing inspections will also adopt

appropriate housing rules and regulations from

time to time to clarify or further refine the

provisions of the ordinance. When rules and

regulations are used, care should be taken that the

department is not overburdened with a number of

minor rules and regulations. Similarly, a housing

ordinance that encompasses all rules and regulations

might have difficulty because any amendments to

it will require action by the political element of

the community. Some housing groups, in

attempting to obtain amendments to an

ordinance, have had the entire ordinance thrown

out by the political bodies.

Administrative Provisions of a Housing Code

The administrative procedures and powers of the housing

inspection agency, its supervisors, and its staff are similar to

other provisions in that all are based on the police power of

the state to legislate for public health and safety. In

addition, the administrative provisions, and to a lesser

extent, the court and penalty provisions, outline how the

police power is to be exercised in administering and

enforcing the code.

Generally, the administrative elements deal with

procedures for ensuring that the constitutional doctrines of

reasonableness, equal protection under the law and due

process of law are observed. They also must guard against

violation of prohibitions against unlawful search and seizure,

impairment of obligations of contract, and unlawful

delegation of authority. These factors encompass items of

great importance to housing inspection supervisors such

as the inspector’s right of entry, reasonable hours of

inspection, proper service, and the validity of the provisions

of the housing codes they administer. 

Owner of Record. It is essential to file legal actions

against the true owners of properties in violation of

housing codes. With the advent of the computer, this is

often much easier than in the past. Databases that provide

this information are readily available from many offices of

local government such as the tax assessment office. The

method of obtaining the name and address of the legal

owner of a property in violation varies from place to

place. Ordinarily, a check of the city tax records will

suffice unless there is reason to believe these are not up to

date. In this case, a further check of county or parish

records will turn up the legal owner if state law requires

deed registration there. If it does not, the advice of the

municipal law department should be sought about the next

steps to follow.

Due Process Requirements. Every notice, complaint,

summons, or other type of legal paper concerning alleged

housing code violations in a given dwelling or dwelling

unit must be legally served on the proper party to be valid

and to prevent harassment of innocent parties. This might

be the owner, agent, or tenant, as required by the code. It

is customary to require that the notice to correct existing

violations and any subsequent notices or letters be served by

certified or registered mail with return receipt requested. The

receipt serves as proof of service if the case has to be taken

to court.

Due process requirements also call for clarity and

specificity with respect to the alleged violations, both in

the violation notices and the court complaint-summons.

For this reason, special care must be taken to be complete

and accurate in listing the violations and charges. To

illustrate, rather than direct the violator to repair all

windows where needed, the violator should be told

exactly which windows and what repairs are involved. 

The chief limitation on the due process requirement, with

respect to service of notices, lies in cases involving

immediate threats to health and safety. In these instances,

the inspection agency or its representative may, without

notice or hearing, issue an order citing the existence of

the emergency and requiring that action deemed

necessary to meet the emergency be taken.

In some areas housing courts on the municipal level have

advocates that assist both plaintiffs and defendants

prepare for the court process or to resolve the issue to

avoid court.

Hearings and Condemnation Power. The purpose of a

hearing is to give the alleged violator an opportunity to be

heard before further action is taken by the housing inspection

agency. These hearings may be very informal, involving

meetings between a representative of the agency and the

person ordered to take corrective action. They also may

be formal hearings at which the agency head presides and

at which the city and the defendant both are entitled to

be represented by counsel and expert witnesses. 

Informal Hearings. A violator may have questions about a

violation notice or the notice may be served at a time

when personal hardship or other factors prevent a violator

from meeting the terms of the notice. Therefore, many

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-9
housing codes provide the opportunity for a hearing at

which the violator may discuss questions or problems and

seek additional time or some modification of the order.

Administered in a firm but understanding manner, these

hearings can serve as invaluable aids in relieving needless

fears of those involved, in showing how the inspection

program is designed to help them and in winning their

voluntary compliance.

Formal Hearings. Formal hearings are often quasijudicial

hearings (even though the prevailing court rules of

evidence do not always apply) from which an appeal may

be taken to court. All witnesses must therefore be sworn

in, and a record of the proceedings must be made. The

formal hearing is used chiefly as the basis for determining

whether a dwelling is fit for human habitation,

occupancy, or use. In the event it is proved unfit, the

building is condemned and the owner is given a

designated amount of time either to rehabilitate it

completely or to demolish it. Where local funds are

available, a municipality may demolish the building and

place a lien against the property to cover demolition costs

if the owner fails to obey the order within the time

specified. This type of condemnation hearing is a very

effective means of stimulating prompt and appropriate

corrective action when it is administered fairly and firmly. 

Procedures for Coping With Common Problems. Several

states and local communities have developed innovative

ways to resolve code violation issues.

Limitation of Occupancy Notification. This technique

was pioneered in Wilmington, Delaware. It makes it

mandatory for property owners in the community to

obtain a legal notice from the housing inspection agency

specifying the maximum number of persons that may

occupy each of their properties. It also requires these owners

to have a residence, place of business, or an agent for their

properties within the community. The agent should be

empowered to take remedial action on any of the

properties found in violation. In addition, if the property

is sold, the new owner must obtain a new Limitation of

Occupancy Notification. 

Request for Inspections. Several states permit their

municipalities to offer a request for inspection service. For

a fee, the housing inspector will inspect a property for

violations of the housing code before its sale so that the

buyer can learn its condition in advance. Many states and

localities now require owners to notify prospective

purchasers of any outstanding notice of health risk or

violations they have against their property before the sale.

If they fail to do so, some codes will hold the owner liable

to the purchaser and the inspection agency for violations.

Tickets for Minor Offenses. Denver, Colorado, has used

minimal financial fines to prod minor violators and first

offenders into correcting violations without the city

resorting to court action. There are mixed views about

this technique because it is akin to formal police action.

Nevertheless, the action may stimulate compliance and

reduce the amount of court action needed to achieve it.

Forms and Form Letters. A fairly typical set of forms and

form letters are described below. It should be stressed that

inspection forms to be used for legal notices must satisfy

legal standards of the code, be meaningful to the owner

and sufficiently explicit about the extent and location of

particular defects, be adaptable to statistical compilation

for the governing body reports, and be written in a manner

that will facilitate clerical and other administrative usage.

The Daily Report Form. This form gives the inspection

agency an accurate basis for reporting, evaluating, and, if

necessary, improving the productivity and performance of

its inspectors.

Complaint Form. This form helps obtain full information

from the complainant and thus makes the relative

seriousness of the problem clear and reduces the number

of crank complaints.

No-entry Notice. This notice advises occupants or owners

that an inspector was there and that they must return a

call to the inspector.

Inspection Report Form. This is the most important form

in an agency. It comes in countless varieties, but if designed

properly, it will ensure more productivity and more

thoroughness by the inspectors, reduce the time spent in

writing reports, locate all violations correctly, and reduce

the time required for typing violation notices. Forms may

vary widely in sophistication from a very simple form to

one whose components are identified by number for use

in processing the case by automation. Some forms are a

combined inspection report and notice form in triplicate so

that the first page can be used as the notice of violation, the

second as the office record, and the third as the guide for

reinspection. A covering form letter notifies the violator of

the time allowed to correct the conditions listed in the

report form.

Violation Notice. This is the legal notice that housing

code violations exist and must be corrected within the

3-10 Housing Regulations
indicated amount of time. The notice may be in the form

of a letter that includes the alleged violations or has a

copy of these attached. It may be a standard notice form,

or it may be a combined report-notice. Regardless of the

type of notice used, it should make the location and

nature of all violations clear and specify the exact section

of the code that covers each one. The notice must advise

violators of their right to a hearing. It should also indicate

that the violator has a right to be represented by counsel

and that failure to obtain counsel will not be accepted as

grounds for postponing a hearing or court case.

Hearing Forms. These should include a form letter

notifying the violator of the date and time set for the hearing,

a standard summary sheet on which the supervisor can

record the facts presented at an informal hearing, and a

hearing-decision letter for notifying all concerned of the

hearing results. The latter should include the names of the

violator, inspector, law department, and any other city

official or agency that may be involved in the case.

Reinspection Form Letters or Notices. These have the

same characteristics as violation notices except that they

cover the follow-up orders given to the violator who has

failed to comply with the original notice within the time

specified. Some agencies may use two or three types of

these form letters to accommodate different degrees of

response by the violator. Whether one or several are used,

standardization of these letters or notices will expedite the

processing of cases.

Court Complaint and Summons Forms. These forms

advise alleged violators of the charges against them and

summon them to appear in court at the specified time

and place. It is essential that the housing inspection

agency work closely with the municipal law department

in preparing these forms so that each is done in exact

accord with the rules of court procedure in the relevant

state and community.

Court Action Record Form. This form provides an accurate

running record of the inspection agency’s court actions and

their results.

Substantive Provisions of a Housing Code

A housing code is the primary tool of the housing

inspector. The code spells out what the inspector may or

may not do. An effort to improve housing conditions can be

no better than the code allows. The substantive provisions of

the code specify the minimal housing conditions acceptable

to the community that developed them.

Dwelling units should have provisions for preparing at least

one regularly cooked meal per day. Minimum equipment

should include a kitchen sink in good working condition

and properly connected to the water supply system

approved by the appropriate authority. It should provide,

at all times, an adequate amount of heated and unheated

running water under pressure and should be connected to

a sewer system approved by the appropriate authority.

Cabinets or shelves, or both, for storing eating, drinking,

and cooking utensils and food should be provided. These

surfaces should be of sound construction and made of

material that is easy to clean and that will not have a toxic

or deleterious effect on food.

In addition, a stove and refrigerator should be provided.

Within every dwelling there should be a room that affords

privacy and is equipped with a flush toilet in good working

condition.

Within the vicinity of the flush toilet, a sink should be

provided. In no case should a kitchen sink substitute as a

lavatory sink. In addition, within each dwelling unit there

should be, within a room that affords privacy, either a bathtub

or shower or both, in good working condition. Both the

lavatory sink and the bathtub or shower or both should be

equipped with an adequate amount of heated and

unheated water under pressure. Each should be connected

to an approved sewer system. 

Within each dwelling unit two or more means of egress should

be provided to safe and open space at ground level. Provisions

should be incorporated within the housing code to meet the

safety requirements of the state and community involved. The

housing code should spell out minimum standards for lighting

and ventilation within each room in the structure. In addition,

minimum thermal standards should be provided.

Although most codes merely provide the requirement of a

given temperature at a given height above floor level, the

community should give consideration to the use of

effective temperatures. The effective temperature is a means of

incorporating not only absolute temperature in degrees, but

also humidity and air movement, giving a better indication of

the comfort index of a room.

The code should provide that no person shall occupy or

let for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling units that do

not comply with stated requirements. Generally, these

requirements specify that the foundation, roof, exterior walls,

doors, window space and windows of the structure be

sound and in good repair; that it be moisture-free,

watertight and reasonably weather tight and that all

structural surfaces be sound and in good repair.

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-11
HUD defines a multifamily dwelling unit as one that contains

four or more dwelling units in a single structure. A

dwelling unit is further defined as a single unit of

residence for a family of one or more persons in which

sleeping accommodations are provided but toileting or

cooking facilities are shared by the occupants.

Building Codes

Building codes define what materials and methods are

tobe used in the construction of various buildings. Model

building codes have been published by various trade

organizations such as the Southern Building Code Congress

International (SBCCI), Building Officials and Code

Administrators (BOCA), and the International Conference of

Building Officials (ICBO). Each of these groups

published a model building code that was widely used or

adapted regionally in the United States. BOCA national

codes were used mostly in eastern and Great Lakes states,

ICBO uniform codes in western and Midwest states, and

SBCCI standard codes in southern states. As a result, the

construction industry often faced the challenge, and cost,

of building to different codes in different areas of the country.

In 1994, BOCA, ICBO, and SBCCI created the

International Code Council (ICC) to develop a single set of

comprehensive, coordinated model construction codes that

could be used throughout the United States and around

the world. The first I-Code published was the

International Plumbing Code in 1995. By 2000, a

complete family of I-Codes was available, including the

International Building Code. The ICC Performance Code for

Buildings and Facilities joined the I-Code family in 2001. 

On February 1, 2003, the three organizations (BOCA,

SBCCI, and ICBO) were consolidated into the ICC

[13,14]. According to ICC Board president, Paul E. Myers, 

“The ICC International Codes (I Codes) combine

the strengths of the regional codes without regional

limitations. The ICC is a nonprofit organization

dedicated to developing a single set of comprehensive

and coordinated national codes to make compliance

easier and more cost-effective. I Codes respond to the

needs of the construction industry and public safety.

A single set of codes has strong support from

government, code enforcement officials, fire officials,

architects, engineers, builders, developers, and

building owners and managers.”

References

1. Hammurabi’s Code of Laws. Translated by L.W.

King. Available from URL:

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm.

2. Claghorn KH. The foreign immigrant in New

York City. Reports of the Industrial Commission,

Volume XV. Washington, DC: US Government

Printing Office; 1901.p. 465-92. Available from

URL: http://tenant.net/Community/LES/clag2.html.

3. Riis J. How the other half lives—studies among

the tenements of New York. New York: Charles

Scriber’s Sons; 1890. Available from URL:

http://www.bartleby.com/208/.

4. New York City Department of City Planning. New

York City zoning: zoning history. New York City:

New York City Department of City Planning; no

date. Available from URL:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/

zone/zonehis.html. 

5. New York State Multiple Dwelling Law: chapter

713 of the Laws of 1929, as amended. Available

from URL: http://tenant.net/Other_Laws/

MDL/mdltoc.html.

6. Understanding Fannie Mae: our history.

Washington, DC: Fannie Mae; 2005. Available

from URL: http://www. fanniemae.com/aboutfm/

understanding/history.jhtml?p=About+Fannie+

Mae&s=Understanding+Fannie+

Mae&t=Our+History.

7. Paulson PB. Protecting zoning laws. Atlanta:

North Buckhead Civic Association; 2000 18 Mar.

Available from URL:

http://www.nbca.org/TAP_AJC_3-18.htm.

8. Municipal Code Corporation. Municipal building

codes (online library). Tallahassee, FL: Municipal

Code Corporation. Available from URL:

http://www.municode.com/resources/

online_codes.asp.

9. American Public Health Association. Housing

ordinance. Am J Public Health 1952

Jan;42(1):76–7.

10. US Public Health Service. APHA-CDC

recommended housing maintenance and occupancy

3-12 Housing Regulations
ordinance. Atlanta: US Department of Health and

Human Services; 1975.

11. American Public Health Association. Housing

and health: APHA-CDC recommended minimum

housing standards. Washington, DC: American

Public Health Association; 1986. 

12. Lang RE, Sohmer RR, editors. Legacy of the

Housing Act of 1949: The past, present, and

future of federal housing and urban policy.

Housing Policy Debate 2000;11(2): 291–7.

Available from URL:

http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org/programs/

hpd/pdf/ hpd_ 1102_edintro.pdf.

13. International Code Council. International

residential code 2003. Country Club Hills, IL:

ICC; 2003.

14. International Code Council. International

building code 2003. Country Club Hills, IL:

ICC; 2003.

Additional Sources of Information

American Planning Association. Available from URL:

http://www.planning.org/.

Arendt R. “Open Space” zoning: what it is and why it

works. Planners Commission Journal 1992. Available

from URL: http://www.plannersweb.com/articles/are015.html.

Bookmark, Inc. Available from URL: http://www.

bookmarki.com.

International Code Council. Available from URL:

http://www.iccsafe.org.

Rosenberg M. Zoning: residential, commercial, or

industrial? New York: About, Inc.; no date. Available

from URL: http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/

aa072801a.htm?iam=sherlock_abc/.

US Department of Energy, Land Use Planning. Smart

Communities Network. Washington, DC: US Department

of Energy; no date. Available from URL: http://www.

smartcommunities.ncat.org/landuse/luintro.shtml. 

US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Available from URL: http://www.hud.gov/.

US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Final

report of HUD review of model building codes.

Washington, DC: US Department of Housing and Urban

Development; no date. Available from URL:

http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/disabilities/

modelcodes/chapter5.html.

Healthy Housing Reference Manual 3-13
3-14 Housing Regulations