Does Arkansas Act 1002 stop a city historic district from regulating exterior changes to a county courthouse?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Arkansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Arkansas passed Act 1002 of 2025 (codified at A.C.A. § 14-56-105), which says a city cannot enforce its "building or zoning regulations" on county property used for a public purpose within city limits. The Pope County Courthouse sits inside the City of Russellville's Downtown Historic District, so State Representative Matt Duffield asked the Attorney General whether Act 1002 stops the city's Historic District Office from applying its guidelines (which govern exterior alterations) to the courthouse.
Attorney General Tim Griffin's answer: no. Act 1002 withdraws a city's authority to enforce municipal building and zoning regulations on qualifying county property, but the opinion concludes it does not amend, limit, or repeal the separate authority the Historic Districts Act gives to local governments and historic district commissions. The two schemes come from different parts of the code, serve different purposes, and use different standards. Zoning and building rules deal with land use, construction, and safety; historic district rules deal with the exterior appearance and character of buildings in a designated district. So Russellville can still enforce its historic district guidelines on the courthouse even though it cannot enforce ordinary building and zoning rules there.
What this means for you
Cities with historic districts
The opinion treats historic district authority as surviving Act 1002. Based on this opinion, a city that cannot enforce its building or zoning regulations on public county property may still require a certificate of appropriateness and review exterior alterations under its historic district ordinance, because the AG reads historic district regulation as distinct from "building or zoning regulations."
Counties owning property in a city historic district
The opinion means a county whose public building sits in a city historic district is relieved of municipal building and zoning enforcement by Act 1002 but is still subject to the city's historic district review of exterior work. The AG points out that historic district review can reach even minor exterior changes (paint color, windows, light fixtures) that would not otherwise trigger a building permit.
Historic district commissions
The opinion supports a commission's continued authority over exterior architectural features in its district, including for a county-owned courthouse, and treats the certificate-of-appropriateness requirement as intact after Act 1002.
Land use attorneys
The opinion turns on statutory structure and the strong presumption against repeal by implication. It reads Act 1002 (Chapter 56, municipal building and zoning) and the Historic Districts Act (Subtitle 10, Chapter 172) as capable of operating harmoniously, so a party arguing that Act 1002 swept away historic district authority would be arguing for an implied repeal the opinion rejects.
Common questions
Q: Does Act 1002 free county property from all city regulation?
A: No. The opinion says Act 1002 removes municipal building and zoning enforcement on qualifying county property, but it does not remove the city's separate historic district authority over exterior alterations.
Q: Can Russellville still regulate the Pope County Courthouse's appearance?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes the city may apply and enforce its historic district guidelines governing exterior alterations to the courthouse.
Q: Why aren't historic district rules the same as zoning?
A: The opinion explains that zoning and building rules govern land use, construction, and safety, while historic district rules govern "design, material, color, or outer appearance." They sit in different chapters of the code and serve different purposes.
Q: What is a certificate of appropriateness?
A: Under the Historic Districts Act, it is the approval a property owner must get before doing exterior work in a historic district, even when no building permit is required. The opinion says this requirement is unaffected by Act 1002.
Background and statutory framework
Act 1002 of 2025, codified at A.C.A. § 14-56-105, provides that a municipality "shall not enforce municipal building or zoning regulations on county property that is: (1) Used for a public purpose; and (2) Located within the corporate limits of the municipality," and requires such county property to comply with county building and zoning regulations instead.
The Historic Districts Act, codified separately in Title 14, Subtitle 10, Chapter 172, authorizes cities, towns, and counties to form historic districts and to require a "certificate of appropriateness" before exterior work (A.C.A. §§ 14-172-203, -208). Its purpose is to preserve the appearance and character of designated historic buildings and districts (A.C.A. § 14-172-202), and its focus is limited to "design, material, color, or outer appearance" (A.C.A. § 14-172-210). By contrast, zoning ordinances regulate location, height, bulk, density, and land use (A.C.A. § 14-56-416(a)(3)(A)), and building ordinances regulate construction and safety (A.C.A. § 14-56-201).
Reading these schemes together, the opinion concludes historic district regulations are not "municipal building or zoning regulations" within Act 1002, and that nothing in Act 1002 amends the Historic Districts Act or repeals it by implication. It relies on the Arkansas Supreme Court's rule that "repeal by implication is not favored and is never allowed except when there is such an invincible repugnancy between the provisions that both cannot stand" (Wright v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., 372 Ark. 330, 276 S.W.3d 253 (2008)).
Citations and references
Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 14-56-105 (Act 1002 of 2025; municipal building/zoning on county property)
- A.C.A. §§ 14-172-202, -203, -208, -210 (Historic Districts Act)
- A.C.A. § 14-56-416(a)(3)(A) (zoning ordinances)
- A.C.A. § 14-56-201 (building ordinances)
Cases:
- Wright v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., 372 Ark. 330, 276 S.W.3d 253 (2008)
Source
Original opinion text
BOB R. BROOKS JR. JUSTICE BUILDING
101 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
Opinion No. 2026-005
June 1, 2026
The Honorable Matt Duffield
State Representative
Post Office Box 11057
Russellville, Arkansas 72812
Dear Representative Duffield:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion on Act 1002 of 2025, which is codified at
A.C.A. § 14-56-105. That statute provides that “a municipality shall not enforce municipal
building or zoning regulations on county property” used for a public purpose within municipal
limits.1 You note that the Pope County Courthouse is located within the City of Russellville’s
Downtown Historic District and that it is subject to review by the City’s Historic District Office.2
You further explain that the Office’s guidelines are not, strictly speaking, building or zoning
regulations. Rather, they relate to exterior alterations and “ensure that new construction is in
character with the important elements of the existing historic fabric both in scale and appearance.”
Against this background, you ask:
Does Act 1002 prohibit the City’s Historic District Office from enforcing its
Historic District guidelines/regulations upon the Pope County Courthouse?
RESPONSE
No, Act 1002 withdraws a municipality’s authority to enforce municipal building and zoning
regulations against qualifying county-owned property. But it does not amend, limit, or repeal the
separate authority granted to local governments and historic district commissions by the Historic
Districts Act.
1 A.C.A. § 14-56-105(a).
2 For the purposes of this opinion, I assume that the facts as presented in your request are true. As a general matter, I
am not authorized to act as a factfinder in the course of issuing Attorney General opinions. See Ark. Att’y Gen. Op.
2017-028 (“The fact finding required … is beyond the scope of an Attorney General’s opinion.”).
The Honorable Matt Duffield
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-005
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Act 1002 of 2025, which is codified at A.C.A. § 14-56-105, provides:
(a) A municipality shall not enforce municipal building or zoning regulations on county
property that is:
(1) Used for a public purpose; and
(2) Located within the corporate limits of the municipality.
(b) A county owning property that is used for a public purpose and is located within the
corporate limits of a municipality shall comply with the building and zoning regulations of
the county.
Thus, Act 1002 strips municipalities of their authority to enforce “municipal building or zoning
regulations” on qualifying county property, instead requiring such property to comply with county
building and zoning regulations.
The Historic Districts Act, however, authorizes cities, towns, and counties to form historic districts
and to require a “certificate of appropriateness” before conducting exterior work.3 The Act is
codified separately in Title 14, Subtitle 10 (Economic Development and Tourism Generally),
Chapter 172, rather than in Chapter 56 (Municipal Building and Zoning Regulations — Planning),
where Act 1002 is codified.
The purpose of the Historic Districts Act is to preserve and protect the appearance and character
of designated “buildings, sites, places, and districts of historical interest.”4
Its regulatory focus is
limited to matters of “design, material, color, or outer appearance,” rather than structural integrity,
land-use allocation, or code compliance.
5
By contrast, zoning ordinances regulate “the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of
buildings; open space; lot coverage; density and distribution of population; and the uses of land,
buildings, and structures.”6 Building ordinances regulate the “erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration, and repair of buildings,” including requirements related to public safety,
3 A.C.A. §§ 14-172-203, -208.
4
Id. 14-172-202.
5
Id. 14-172-210.
6
Id. § 14-56-416(a)(3)(A).
The Honorable Matt Duffield
State Representative
Opinion No. 2026-005
Page 3
fire protection, and building materials.
7 These ordinances are directed at land-use planning,
construction standards, and public safety—not aesthetic or historic preservation.
This statutory framework supports the conclusion that historic district regulations are not
“municipal building or zoning regulations” within the meaning of § 14-56-105. The two regulatory
schemes serve distinct purposes, apply different standards, and operate under different statutory
constraints.
Consistent with this separate statutory function, a certificate of appropriateness is required for
work affecting exterior architectural features even when no building permit is necessary, and the
certificate must be obtained before a building permit may issue when one is required.
8 This means
that even minor exterior alterations that would not normally trigger building permit
requirements—such as changing paint colors, replacing windows, or installing new light fixtures—
still require commission approval if they affect “exterior architectural features” within a historic
district. As a result, historic district review may extend to matters that fall wholly outside the scope
of ordinary building-permit or zoning processes. This indicates that the two statutory schemes,
while related, are distinct and capable of operating harmoniously.
Finally, nothing in Act 1002 amends the Historic Districts Act, nor does it manifest a clear intent
to repeal or limit that Act by implication.9
You indicate that the Pope County Courthouse is county-owned, used for a public purpose, and
located within the City’s nationally registered Downtown Historic District. Accordingly, although
Act 1002 precludes the City from enforcing its municipal building and zoning regulations on the
courthouse, it does not prohibit the City from applying and enforcing its historic district guidelines
or regulations governing exterior alterations to the courthouse.
Assistant Attorney General Justin L. Hughes prepared this opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General
7
Id. § 14-56-201.
8 A.C.A. § 14-172-208.
9 See Wright v. Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp., 372 Ark. 330, 333, 276 S.W.3d 253, 256 (2008) (explaining that
“repeal by implication is not favored and is never allowed except when there is such an invincible repugnancy between
the provisions that both cannot stand”).
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2026 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Arkansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.