Englewood proposal would give some nonconforming homes three years to rebuild

Englewood is considering a Title 16 amendment that would give owners of certain damaged or destroyed residential properties three years to obtain a reconstruction permit and rebuild with the same number of housing units, rather than lose the ability to continue a nonconforming use.

The proposal is scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing Aug. 18, 2026. The city’s agenda packet says the amendment would apply to residential structures with nonconforming uses that are damaged, demolished or deemed more than 60% substandard or in disrepair based on current value.

Under the draft language, owners could restore the previous structure or build a replacement with the same number of units in the same number of structures or fewer. New construction would still have to meet the development and design standards for its zoning district. The provision would preserve prior residential density but would not allow owners to add units or automatically rebuild an identical structure.

The proposal would also extend the permit-application window from one year to three years for certain nonconforming residential structures, including detached homes that do not meet setback requirements and multifamily buildings with more units than their lots allow. Buildings would still have to meet applicable safety codes, and expansions beyond the prior condition would have to comply with current standards.

If an owner does not obtain a permit within three years, the draft says the structure could no longer be restored for the nonconforming use. A replacement would then be limited to uses allowed under the zoning code.

The change could affect duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, apartments and homes with more accessory dwelling units than current rules allow. Staff materials say Englewood identified 203 residential nonconforming uses during the 2023 Unified Development Code rewrite. The packet says 151 could already rebuild with the same number of units, while 55 had more limited options. Those figures total 206, not 203, and the packet does not explain the discrepancy.

Staff has described the amendment as a way to reduce barriers to housing, support neighborhood reinvestment and allow owners to repair or replace homes without automatically losing existing residential capacity. The materials leave unresolved whether the changes should apply to nonconforming residential uses in commercial, mixed-use or industrial districts, rather than only properties in residential zones.

The packet proposed commission findings Sept. 9, a City Council public hearing Sept. 21, first reading Oct. 5 and second reading Oct. 19. As of Aug. 12, the city’s current project schedule listed the Aug. 18 commission hearing, Sept. 21 council hearing and Oct. 5 first reading, but not the Sept. 9 findings or Oct. 19 second reading. An official council agenda document also listed the Sept. 21 hearing.

No hearing, findings, reading or adoption had occurred as of Aug. 12. The commission’s testimony and recommendation, the final ordinance language and the council’s eventual action remain pending.