Las Cruces outlines phased plan, new tools to address vacant and nuisance properties

Chris Faber, community development director for the City of Las Cruces, told the City Council at its Sept. 22 work session that the city has 165 properties on its Nuisance Abatement Team (NAT) list and is moving toward a more proactive, two‑phase approach that would begin with an ordinance for certain commercial properties and residences owned by LLCs.

The update matters because vacant and blighted properties can create safety and public‑health risks, depress nearby property values and complicate neighborhood redevelopment. Faber said the city is using the International Property Maintenance Code to address unoccupied or unsafe structures while preparing tools intended to make enforcement and owner outreach more efficient.

Faber described NAT’s priority system and current activity, and demonstrated a new interactive GIS map staff can update in real time. “We have about a 165 properties that are on the NAT list,” he said. He told the council staff have identified roughly 60 previously unknown owners, condemned eight properties, and are processing several demolition permit applications and two existing liens.

Under the city’s three‑tier priority system, level 1 properties are occupied and working toward compliance; level 2 properties are often vacant or have no known owner and show worsening problems; and level 3 properties are vacant with visible structural issues that present a health or safety hazard to neighbors and passersby. Faber said the city’s main enforcement tool is the International Property Maintenance Code the city has adopted and that staff also may remove a structure’s certificate of occupancy to limit unsafe habitation.

Faber demonstrated an internal GIS dashboard that includes assessor ownership data, council and fire districts, flood‑zone and historic‑district flags, permit history and links to staff SharePoint folders. He described a public page with FAQs, a form to report addresses and a public listing of level 2 and level 3 properties.

On enforcement strategy, Faber proposed two ordinance phases: phase 1 would target commercial properties and residences owned by LLCs, with a registry, timelines for remediation and a fee structure that could escalate for properties that remain noncompliant; phase 2 would expand to residential properties and include potential owner assistance programs. He recommended a timeline that could put an ordinance before council by July 2026 with an enforcement start in January 2027 and a potential residential registry enforcement in January 2028.

Faber warned that the ordinance and expanded enforcement would require staff time and resources. He outlined positions that NAT would benefit from: a dedicated legal staff member for liens and foreclosures, a building official focused on NAT cases, a permit technician for site visits and a management analyst for administrative support. On current funding, he said NAT’s budget for the current fiscal year is $100,000 (down from $300,000 the prior year) and estimated residential demolition costs can range from about $25,000 to $60,000 for historic properties; a board‑and‑secure can run roughly $2,500 to $6,000.

Council members pressed on practical issues: how staff will find and notify heirs or absent owners, how to balance property rights with public safety, and how commercial properties differ from residential cases. Faber and staff described multiple owner‑search tactics including internet and social searches, neighbor inquiries and in some cases administrative search warrants to document conditions when necessary. Brad (staff member) noted that when personal service is impossible, staff can post notice on the property and publish notice in the newspaper as allowed under state and municipal code.

Councilors and staff also discussed potential exemptions for owners actively seeking permits, marketing a property through a licensed broker, or those in probate or foreclosure. Historic‑preservation advocates and the city’s historic preservation committee were identified as resources to find buyers or owners who could rehabilitate properties in historic districts rather than see them demolished.

Faber said the NAT team will continue site identification and outreach, keep the public GIS list updated, work with communications on a public awareness campaign and evaluate the ordinance structure, including appropriate fee levels and exemptions. He said staff will return to council as the ordinance and staffing needs are refined.

A resident who spoke during the public‑comment period urged the city to consider rehabilitating properties and using them as a revenue stream for affordable housing or resale after rehabilitation; Faber said contractors and local buyers often step forward when properties are formally addressed.

Council and staff emphasized that the effort is intended as a community risk‑reduction program that will require funding, legal support and ongoing staffing to produce tangible results.