Steger — Ch. 18 Art. XVI Rental Housing Nuisance § 18-341
Defenses
Operative Text
It is a defense to an action seeking the declaration of the property as a nuisance property that the owner of the property at the time in question could not, in the exercise of reasonable care or diligence, determine that nuisance activity was occurring upon the property, or could not, in spite of the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, prevent a third party from engaging in the conduct constituting the nuisance activity complained of by the municipality. It shall also be a defense for an owner, if prior to the owner being served notice of enforcement proceedings, the owner or his or her or its property manager or other designee, notified a law enforcement agency of suspected illegal activity and has started the eviction process against any tenant or occupant responsible for the nuisance activity complained of. It shall also be a defense if an owner has made a good faith effort to implement the reasonable mitigation or abatement plan requested by the chief law enforcement officer, pursuant to section 18-340 (a)(2), but the nuisance activity has not been mitigated or abated. It shall also be a defense if an owner, in trying to mitigate or abate the nuisance activity prosecuted an eviction action against the tenant but the eviction was denied by a court.
Section 18-341 of Steger's Rental Housing Nuisance ordinance establishes several defenses that a property owner may raise when the municipality seeks to have a property declared a nuisance. A property cannot be declared a nuisance if the owner genuinely could not detect or prevent a third party's nuisance activity despite exercising reasonable care. Additional defenses exist when an owner reported suspected illegal activity to law enforcement and began eviction proceedings before receiving notice of enforcement, made a good-faith effort to follow a mitigation or abatement plan under § 18-340(a)(2), or pursued eviction but had that action denied by a court.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under § 18-341, compliant property operators generally document their monitoring efforts, respond promptly to signs of nuisance activity, and maintain records of any communications with law enforcement regarding suspected illegal conduct on their properties. When nuisance activity is identified, operators who coordinate with their property managers or designees to report concerns to law enforcement and initiate eviction proceedings—before any enforcement notice is served—are in a stronger position to assert a statutory defense. Operators who receive a mitigation or abatement plan from the chief law enforcement officer under § 18-340(a)(2) typically document every step taken to implement that plan in good faith, including any court filings related to eviction actions.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Section 18-341 is primarily a provision that governs defenses available to property owners in nuisance proceedings brought by the municipality of Steger, but it has indirect implications for tenants. Because the ordinance recognizes eviction proceedings as a mechanism owners may use to address nuisance activity, tenants who receive eviction notices in connection with alleged nuisance conduct may wish to understand how § 18-341 fits into the broader enforcement process. Tenants facing such situations can explore their rights through local tenant-rights organizations or by consulting with a housing attorney familiar with Steger's rental housing regulations.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated November 6, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References In
Rules and statutes that cite this regulation