Who gets written notice of a Texas zoning change, and do you have to be on the city tax roll to count toward a zoning protest?

Plain-English summary

Senator Donna Campbell asked the AG three questions about Texas municipal zoning procedure, arising from a home-rule city (San Antonio) where the city council does not meet jointly with the zoning commission. The questions: who is entitled to written notice of a proposed zoning change, who has the right to protest a change, and what procedures verify eligibility for notice and protest, including the role of county records.

On notice, the AG concluded that written notice of a zoning-commission hearing goes only to owners on the tax roll. Local Government Code subsection 211.007(c) requires written notice "sent to each owner, as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, of real property within 200 feet" of the property to be rezoned. So an owner within 200 feet is entitled to individual written notice only if the most recently approved municipal tax roll shows they own the property. (If the property was recently annexed and is not yet on the tax roll, notice is given by newspaper publication.) The AG noted that not receiving individual written notice does not leave an owner with no notice at all, because individual notice is in addition to the general public notice and the chance to be heard.

On protest, the AG reached a different answer. A valid protest by owners of at least 20 percent of the affected or adjoining land (within 200 feet) forces the governing body to muster a three-fourths supermajority to adopt the change (subsection 211.006(d)). Unlike the notice provision, subsection 211.006(d) does not say an owner must appear on the tax roll. Reading the two provisions side by side, the AG concluded a landowner likely does not have to be on the most recently approved municipal tax roll to count toward the protest calculation. The AG acknowledged an older case (Strong v. City of Grand Prairie) that tied protest ownership to the city tax roll, but found a more recent decision (City of Austin v. Acuna) and the plain text more persuasive, and it revisited its own prior opinion (GA-0630) that had relied on Strong. So if the Texas Supreme Court considered the issue, the AG predicted it would treat protest eligibility as ownership within the qualifying area, regardless of the tax roll.

On verification procedures, the AG explained that, apart from using the tax roll to identify owners entitled to written notice, neither subsection 211.006(d) nor 211.007(c) directs or prohibits the use of external records (like county-level records) or any particular method to verify ownership. That kind of detail is typically found in local zoning ordinances, which courts review for abuse of discretion. The AG also flagged that House Bill 24, effective September 1, 2025, changes the protest procedures but does not change the opinion's conclusion.

What this means for you

If you are a property owner near a proposed rezoning

Based on this opinion, you are entitled to individual written notice of the zoning-commission hearing only if the most recently approved municipal tax roll shows you own property within 200 feet. But for counting toward the 20 percent protest before the governing body, the AG concluded you likely qualify if you own land in the protest area even if you are not on the tax roll. Note the opinion flags that House Bill 24 (effective September 1, 2025) changed the protest procedures, so verify the current rules.

If you are a city official, zoning commission, or planner

The opinion separates the two questions: written-notice eligibility under subsection 211.007(c) is keyed to the most recently approved municipal tax roll, while protest eligibility under subsection 211.006(d) is not, by its terms, limited to owners on the tax roll. The AG predicts a court would treat protest eligibility as ownership within the qualifying area.

If you advise municipalities on zoning procedure

The opinion concludes the statute does not mandate any particular external record or verification method beyond using the tax roll to identify owners owed written notice; those details usually live in local ordinances, reviewed for abuse of discretion. The opinion revisits prior opinion GA-0630 in light of City of Austin v. Acuna and notes the September 1, 2025 changes from House Bill 24.

If you are a developer or applicant

The opinion suggests a broader set of nearby owners may count toward a protest than the written-notice list implies, which can affect whether you face the three-fourths supermajority requirement. The conclusion is a prediction of how a court would rule, not a binding holding, and the protest procedures have since been amended by House Bill 24.

Common questions

Q: Who gets written notice of a Texas zoning change?
A: The AG concluded only owners of real property within 200 feet who appear on the most recently approved municipal tax roll are entitled to individual written notice of the zoning-commission hearing under subsection 211.007(c).

Q: Do I have to be on the city tax roll to protest a zoning change?
A: Likely not. The AG concluded subsection 211.006(d) does not require an owner to be on the most recently approved municipal tax roll to count toward the 20 percent protest calculation.

Q: What does a valid protest do?
A: Under subsection 211.006(d), a written, signed protest by owners of at least 20 percent of the covered or adjoining land within 200 feet requires a three-fourths affirmative vote of the governing body to adopt the change.

Q: How does a city verify who owns the property?
A: Beyond using the tax roll to identify owners owed written notice, the AG said the statute neither directs nor prohibits using external records or a particular method. That detail is typically set by local ordinance.

Q: Did a later law change this?
A: Yes in part. The AG noted House Bill 24, effective September 1, 2025, changes the protest procedures, though the AG said it does not change the opinion's conclusion. Check current law.

Background and statutory framework

Zoning lets a municipality restrict private property use under a comprehensive plan (City of Brookside Vill. v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. 1982); Williamson Pointe Venture v. City of Austin, 912 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ); Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.004). Chapter 211, subchapter A governs general zoning regulations (§§ 211.001–.020), and reclassifying property involves the zoning commission and the governing body (§§ 211.006–.007).

For notice, a home-rule city's zoning commission must make a preliminary report and hold a public hearing, and the municipality must give written notice "sent to each owner, as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, of real property within 200 feet" of the property to be changed (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.007(b)–(c); City of Dallas v. E. Vill. Ass'n, 480 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. denied); City of McKinney v. OH Skyline/380, L.P., 375 S.W.3d 580, 583–84 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.)). The right to individual notice is established by the tax roll (Tex. Tax Code § 26.09(e)); recently annexed property not on the tax roll is noticed by publication (§§ 211.006(a), .007(c)). The AG noted individual notice is in addition to the general public notice (FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, 493 S.W.3d 238, 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied)).

For protest, the governing body must achieve a three-fourths supermajority to adopt a change validly protested by owners of at least 20 percent of the covered or adjoining land within 200 feet (Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.006(d)). Reading the statute for legislative intent and giving effect to every word (City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008); Jaster v. Comet II Constr., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. 2014); Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex. v. Luminant Energy Co. LLC, 691 S.W.3d 448, 461 (Tex. 2024); Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39, 52 (Tex. 2014)), the AG concluded subsection 211.006(d) does not require an owner to be on the tax roll, distinguishing the notice class in subsection 211.007(c) and following City of Austin v. Acuna, 651 S.W.3d 474, 484 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) over the older Strong v. City of Grand Prairie, 679 S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, no writ), and revisiting prior opinion GA-0630 (2008). As for verification, the AG concluded the statute neither directs nor prohibits external records or a particular method beyond the tax-roll identification for notice; such detail typically appears in local ordinances reviewed for abuse of discretion (Powell v. City of Houston, 628 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. 2021)). The AG flagged that House Bill 24, effective September 1, 2025, changes the protest procedures without changing its conclusion.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.006 — governing-body hearing and protest
- Tex. Loc. Gov't Code § 211.007 — zoning commission notice and hearing

Key cases:
- City of Austin v. Acuna, 651 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) — protest rights are not co-extensive with the right to written notice
- City of McKinney v. OH Skyline/380, L.P., 375 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) — written-notice right is established by the tax rolls

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/ken-paxton/kp-0498
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/2025/kp-0498.pdf

Original opinion text

August 29, 2025

The Honorable Donna Campbell, M.D.
Chair, Senate Committee on Nominations
Texas State Senate
Post Office Box 12068
Austin, Texas 78711-2068

Opinion No. KP-0498
Re: Zoning procedures, notification requirements, and eligibility for protests under Chapter 211 of the Local Government Code (RQ-0577-KP)

Dear Senator Campbell:

You ask three questions regarding municipal zoning procedures set out in Texas Local Government Code sections 211.006 and 211.007. First, you ask if "property owners within 200 feet of the proposed zoning change—whether within or outside city limits—are entitled to notification" of the change "regardless of their presence on municipal tax rolls." Request Letter at 1. Second, you ask whether property owners within a "designated radius," regardless of whether they are listed on the municipal tax roll, "have the right to protest" a proposed zoning change. Id. Third, you ask about "the standard procedural requirements for verifying eligibility for notification and protest, as well as the role of external (e.g., county-level) records in ensuring accurate notifications." Id.

The process to reclassify property generally involves a municipality's zoning commission and governing body.

"Zoning regulation is a recognized tool of community planning, allowing a municipality, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, to restrict the use of private property," City of Brookside Vill. v. Comeau, 633 S.W.2d 790, 792 (Tex. 1982), in a manner that conforms to a comprehensive plan, see Williamson Pointe Venture v. City of Austin, 912 S.W.2d 340, 342 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no writ) (per curiam); TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.004 (requiring zoning regulations be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan). Chapter 211, subchapter A, of the Local Government Code sets forth the "General Zoning Regulations" applicable to municipalities. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 211.001–.020. Pursuant to those provisions, the process to reclassify property generally involves the municipality's zoning commission and governing body. See id. §§ 211.006–.007; Williamson Pointe Venture, 912 S.W.2d at 342.

We understand that your questions arise from a proposed zoning classification change in a home-rule municipality in which the governing body does not meet jointly with the zoning commission, and we limit this opinion accordingly. See Attachment at 1–2 (relating to a City of San Antonio zoning commission case involving a property owner's request to change the property's zoning classification from commercial to multi-family); see also Milberger Landscaping, Inc. v. City of San Antonio, No. 08-23-00283-CV, 2024 WL 5099206, at *10 (Tex. App.—El Paso Dec. 12, 2024, pet. filed) (mem. op.) (stating San Antonio is a home-rule municipality). On this backdrop, we turn to your first question, which we understand to relate to the part of the reclassification process involving the zoning commission.

Landowners are only entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning commission regarding a proposed classification change if the most recently approved municipal tax roll indicates they own the property.

"In a home-rule city, a zoning commission must recommend zoning districts and zoning regulations to the city's governing body." City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 478; see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(a). The zoning commission must "make a preliminary report and hold at least one public hearing" regarding a proposed zoning change. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(b). "A municipality is required to give written notice of each public hearing before the zoning commission on a proposed change in a zoning classification." City of Dallas v. E. Vill. Ass'n, 480 S.W.3d 37, 41 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, pet. denied); see also TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(c). The notice is "sent to each owner, as indicated by the most recently approved municipal tax roll, of real property within 200 feet of the property on which the change in classification is proposed." TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(c); see also City of McKinney v. OH Skyline/380, L.P., 375 S.W.3d 580, 584 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.) (holding this requirement applies to the owner of property subject to the proposed change). If the property within 200 feet of the property on which the change is proposed is located in territory annexed to the municipality and is not included on the most recently approved municipal tax roll, the notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §§ 211.006(a), .007(c).

Your first question appears to concern a landowner's right to individual written notice of a public hearing pursuant to subsection 211.007(c). Request Letter at 1. Subsection 211.007(c) defines the scope of those to whom written notice is owed before a classification change is made. City of McKinney, 375 S.W.3d at 583. By its terms, the subsection requires that written notice "be sent to any person or entity that the current tax roll indicates is the owner of real property located within 200 feet of property on which the 'change in classification' is proposed." Id. The right to notice is therefore "established by the tax rolls" and "[t]he test for one who deserves individual notice is its ownership of real property." Id. at 584; see also TEX. TAX CODE § 26.09(e) (providing "[t]he appraisal roll with amounts of tax entered as approved by the governing body constitutes the" municipality's tax roll). Thus, in regard to your first question, owners of real property located within 200 feet of a proposed change in classification are entitled to individual written notice of the hearing before the zoning commission only if the most recently approved municipal tax roll indicates they own the property.

[Footnote: That an owner may not receive individual written notice does not, however, mean the owner receives no notification of a proposed zoning classification change because individual notice "is in addition to the general public notice and opportunity to be heard provided in section 211.006(a)." FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, 493 S.W.3d 238, 264 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pet. denied); see also City Letter at 2 (stating that even though an owner may not be "mailed a direct notice from the City, they still receive notice through the publication process . . . and may voice their opposition to the Zoning Commission and City Council through the public hearing process").]

A landowner likely does not have to be listed on the most recently approved municipal tax roll to count toward the protest calculation regarding a proposed classification change before the governing body.

Your second question relates to the part of the reclassification process involving the governmental body. See Request Letter at 1. Upon receipt of a final report from the zoning commission, TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(b), the governing body sets a hearing date to consider a zoning reclassification and publishes "notice of the time and place of the hearing . . . in an official newspaper or a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality," id. § 211.006(a). At the hearing, all "parties in interest and citizens have an opportunity to be heard." Id. An affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of all members of the governing body is required to adopt the proposed change if validly protested by "owners of at least 20 percent of either: (1) the area of the lots or land covered by the proposed change; or (2) the area of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed change and extending 200 feet from that area." Id. § 211.006(d) (noting that the protest "must be written and signed").

We understand your second question to ask whether a landowner must be listed on the approved municipal tax roll to qualify as an owner who counts toward the protest calculation under subsection 211.006(d). Request Letter at 1. Our goal is to ascertain and give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed by the words of the subsection, City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621, 625 (Tex. 2008), "read[ing] the statute contextually, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence," Jaster v. Comet II Constr., Inc., 438 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Tex. 2014) (quoting In re Off. of Att'y Gen., 422 S.W.3d 623, 629 (Tex. 2013)). We presume "the Legislature included words that it intended to include and omitted words it intended to omit." Pub. Util. Comm'n of Tex. v. Luminant Energy Co. LLC, 691 S.W.3d 448, 461 (Tex. 2024) (quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Synatzske, 438 S.W.3d 39, 52 (Tex. 2014)).

Subsection 211.006(d) does not, by its terms, require that an owner appear on the most recently approved municipal tax roll. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.006(d)(2). And the term "owner" as used in subchapter A is not always confined to those on the tax roll. Id. § 211.007(c) (instructing how to serve notice on owners not on the approved tax roll but whose property is "within 200 feet of the property on which the change is proposed" and annexed to the municipality). Consistent with a plain reading of the subsection, a landowner does not have to be listed on the approved municipal tax roll to qualify as an owner under subsection 211.006(d). This reading is likewise confirmed by statutory history, which reveals that protest rights predate the statute's limitation of the term "owner" to those on the approved tax roll in other contexts. See Act of March 14, 1927, 40th Leg., R.S., ch. 283, § 1, 1927 Tex. Gen. Laws 424, 425; see also City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484 n.11 (noting that protest rights predate the right to written notice of proposed changes in classification under subsection 211.007(c) by more than twenty years). Nor does subsection 211.006(d) refer to the same class of people described in subsection 211.007(c). Compare TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.006(d)(2) (referring to owners of "the area of the lots or land immediately adjoining the area covered by the proposed change and extending 200 feet from that area" (emphases added)), with id. § 211.007(c) (referring to owners on the tax roll with "real property within 200 feet of the property on which the change in classification is proposed"); see also City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484 (rejecting the city's argument "that protest rights are co-extensive with the right to written notice").

To be sure, the court in Strong v. City of Grand Prairie held that "the intent of the legislature was to permit written protests of proposed zoning changes by the owners of 'real property' lying within 200 feet of the property on which the zoning change is proposed, which ownership is to be determined from the last approved city tax roll." 679 S.W.2d 767, 770 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1984, no writ) (emphasis added) (construing subsection 211.006(d)(2)'s predecessor statute). But more recent guidance counsels in favor of the statute's plain text. See City of Austin, 651 S.W.3d at 484. As such, were the Texas Supreme Court to consider the issue, it would likely conclude that the protest criteria under subsection 211.006(d) is ownership within the qualifying geographical areas, regardless of the municipal tax roll.

[Footnote: A previous opinion concluded "only those who own real property within the specified geographic limits and whose ownership is indicated on the most recently approved city tax roll" are eligible to protest under subsection 211.006(d)(2). Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0630 (2008) at 3. But this conclusion was based on the fact that, at the time, Strong was the only precedent on point. Id. at 4 (explaining we were advising about our understanding of the current state of the law). The intervening decision in City of Austin construes section 211.006 differently, 651 S.W.3d at 484, and compels us to revisit the statutory text's plain language. House Bill 24, effective September 1, 2025, changes the protest procedures as described in this opinion, but does not change our conclusion. See Act of May 31, 2025, 89th Leg., R.S., ch. 909, § 3, 2025 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. __, __ (to be codified at TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.0061).]

Other than use of the tax roll to identify an owner entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning commission, subsections 211.006(d) and 211.007(c) neither direct nor prohibit the use of external records or a specific method or course of action to verify an owner.

Your final question asks about "standard procedural requirements for verifying [owner] eligibility for" notice under subsection 211.007(c) and to protest under subsection 211.006(d) "as well as the role of external (e.g., county-level) records in ensuring accurate notifications." Request Letter at 1. As previously explained, supra p. 3, an owner's right to written notice under subsection 211.007(c) is established by the most recently approved municipal tax roll. TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE § 211.007(c). The statute neither directs nor prohibits the use of other external records or a specific method or course of action to verify an owner described in subsection 211.007(c). Id. § 211.007(c). Likewise, subsection 211.006(d) neither directs nor prohibits the use of any particular external record, method, or course of action to verify an owner described in that subsection. Id. § 211.006(d). Instead, this type of detail is often found in local zoning ordinances, subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion. See, e.g., City of Dallas v. Homan, No. 05-20-01111-CV, 2022 WL 969631, at *4−5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 31, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also, e.g., Powell v. City of Houston, 628 S.W.3d 838, 842 (Tex. 2021) (explaining that "[c]ity ordinances are 'presumed to be valid,' and courts 'have no authority to interfere unless the ordinance is unreasonable and arbitrary—a clear abuse of discretion'" (citation omitted)). Thus, one generally looks to an individual municipality's local regulations to determine whether any external records, or particular methods or courses of action are used to verify an owner.

S U M M A R Y

The owner of real property within 200 feet of a proposed change in zoning classification is entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning commission if the owner is indicated as such on the most recently approved municipal tax roll.

The plain text of the Local Government Code does not require that an owner be listed on the most recently approved municipal tax roll to count toward the protest calculation regarding a proposed classification change before the governing body.

Other than use of the municipal tax roll to identify an owner entitled to written notice of a hearing before the zoning commission, Local Government Code subsections 211.006(d) and 211.007(c) neither direct nor prohibit the use of external records or a specific method or course of action to verify an owner.

Very truly yours,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER, First Assistant Attorney General
LESLEY FRENCH, Chief of Staff
D. FORREST BRUMBAUGH, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel
JOSHUA C. FIVESON, Chair, Opinion Committee
CHRISTY DRAKE-ADAMS, Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee