2015 ORS 215.185¹
Remedies for unlawful structures or land use

(1) In case a building or other structure is, or is proposed to be, located, constructed, maintained, repaired, altered, or used, or any land is, or is proposed to be, used, in violation of an ordinance or regulation designed to implement a comprehensive plan, the governing body of the county or a person whose interest in real property in the county is or may be affected by the violation, may, in addition to other remedies provided by law, institute injunction, mandamus, abatement, or other appropriate proceedings to prevent, temporarily or permanently enjoin, abate, or remove the unlawful location, construction, maintenance, repair, alteration, or use. When a temporary restraining order is granted in a suit instituted by a person who is not exempt from furnishing bonds or undertakings under ORS 22.010 (State, county or city not required to furnish any bond in any action), the person shall furnish undertaking as provided in ORCP 82 A(1).

(2) The court may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and expenses in a judicial proceeding authorized by this section that involves a dwelling approved to relieve a temporary hardship. However, if the court allows the plaintiff reasonable attorney fees or expenses, such fees or expenses shall not be charged to the county if the county did not actively defend itself or the landowner in the proceeding.

(3) Nothing in this section requires the governing body of a county or a person whose interest in real property in the county is or may be affected to avail itself of a remedy allowed by this section or by any other law. [1955 c.439 §7; 1963 c.619 §12; 1977 c.766 §6; 1981 c.898 §48; 1983 c.826 §5; 2001 c.225 §1]

Notes of Decisions

This sec­tion, read in conjunc­tion with [former] ORS 215.180 and ORS 215.190 (Violation of ordinances or regulations), means that the per­son responsible for unlawfully constructing buildings has a duty to remove them, and, therefore, mandamus will lie against that per­son. Parks v. Bd. of County Commrs., Tillamook, 11 Or App 177, 501 P2d 85 (1972), Sup Ct review denied

Where peti­tioners for writ of mandamus knew that subdivision had been approved on basis of seven-acre lots despite adop­tion of twenty-acre min­i­mum lot size require­ment before final subdivision approval and knew that construc­tion was going forward on basis of seven-acre lots, but did not notify developers, builders or owners of prop­erty until homes were completed, trial court properly refused to order removal of homes under this sec­tion. Drain v. Clackamas County, 36 Or App 799, 585 P2d 746 (1978)

Where building is trailer house within meaning of county ordinance if designed to be manufactured so it can be moved from one loca­tion to an­oth­er and is expressly excluded from defini­tion of single-family dwelling, trailer house is prohibited from areas bearing designa­tion "recrea­tional residential" zone. Clackamas County v. Dunham, 282 Or 419, 579 P2d 223 (1978)

Circuit court does not have jurisdic­tion under this sec­tion to resolve disputes in which alleged ac­tivity is taken pursuant to "land use decision" by local governing body; LUBA has exclusive jurisdic­tion to correct errors in land use decisions. Mehring v. Arpke, 65 Or App 747, 672 P2d 382 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Plaintiff's ac­tion to compel removal of transmission tower erected pursuant to county permits was properly dismissed on ground that subject matter of ac­tion was within LUBA's exclusive jurisdic­tion as review of ac­tion taken in accordance with land use decision by local govern­ment. Wright v. KECH-TV, 71 Or App 662, 694 P2d 545 (1984), aff'd 300 Or 139, 707 P2d 1232 (1985)

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 119 (1976)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Non "home rule" county courts or com­mis­sions general legislative powers, (1974) Vol 36, p 1070

Chapter 215

Notes of Decisions

Published notice is adequate if prop­erty owners can reasonably ascertain that prop­erty in which they hold interest may be affected. Clackamas County v. Emmert, 14 Or App 493, 513 P2d 532 (1973), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory scheme es­tab­lishing LCDC and granting it authority to es­tab­lish state-wide land use planning goals does not unconstitu­tionally delegate legislative power where both standards (under this chapter) and safeguards ([former] ORS 197.310) exist. Meyer v. Lord, 37 Or App 59, 586 P2d 367 (1978)

Where county had not yet adopted comprehensive plan but had zoned certain por­tions "primarily agricultural," county had not enacted adequate interim measures to protect its agricultural land until exclusive farm use zoning was completed. Columbia County v. LCDC, 44 Or App 749, 606 P2d 1184 (1980)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Fasano v. Bd. of County Commrs., applica­tion to county governing bodies and planning com­mis­sions, (1974) Vol 36, p 960; binding effect on govern­mental agencies of the adop­tion of interim Willamette River Greenway boundaries, (1975) Vol 37, p 894

Law Review Cita­tions

36 EL 25 (2006)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 215—County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors215.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 215, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano215.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.