Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 125.0015, 125.002, 125.003, 125.004, 125.005
Common nuisance abatement in Texas — the statute that lets a neighbour close a drug house
A claim in Texas district and county courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
Chapter 125 is the answer to a question people ask about a property and rarely get answered: who can do something about it.
Section 125.002(a) says an individual can. A suit to enjoin and abate a common nuisance "may be brought by an individual, by the attorney general, or by a district, county, or city attorney" — and a private citizen brings it in their own name. Verification of the petition and proof of personal injury "need not be shown."
The remedy is not money. It is an injunction, a bond, and a judgment that orders the place closed for a year.
What the claim is
A property near you is habitually used for crime, and you want a court to stop it.
Where the right comes from
CPRC chapter 125 — subchapter A for common nuisances, subchapter B for public nuisances.
What a plaintiff has to prove
Section 125.0015(a): a person "who maintains a place to which persons habitually go" for a listed purpose, "and who knowingly tolerates the activity and furthermore fails to make reasonable attempts to abate the activity maintains a common nuisance."
Three elements:
- A place to which persons habitually go for one of the listed activities;
- The defendant knowingly tolerated the activity; and
- The defendant failed to make reasonable attempts to abate it.
Section 125.0015(b) applies the same test to a multiunit residential property — an apartment building, condominium, hotel or motel with at least three dwelling units, but not a single-family home or duplex. Section 125.0015(c) extends it to a person operating a web address or computer network in connection with certain of the listed activities, with carve-outs in (d) for internet service providers, interactive computer services, search engines, hosting companies, operating system providers and device manufacturers.
The list
Section 125.0015(a) enumerates twenty-eight activities. They include the discharge of a firearm in a public place; organised criminal activity; drug offences under Health & Safety Code chapter 481; gambling; prostitution, its solicitation, promotion and aggravated promotion; compelling prostitution; commercial obscenity; aggravated assault; sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault; robbery and aggravated robbery; unlawfully carrying a weapon; murder and capital murder; continuous sexual abuse of a young child or disabled individual; unlicensed massage services under Occupations Code chapter 455; employing a person under 21 at a sexually oriented business; trafficking of persons; sexual conduct or performance by a child; employment harmful to a child; criminal trespass; disorderly conduct; arson; criminal mischief causing a loss of $500 or more; graffiti; and permitting a person under 18 to enter a sexually oriented business.
Noise, traffic, mess and the ordinary irritations of a bad neighbour are not on the list. Those are private nuisance claims, which pay damages and require proof of substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of your own land.
The evidence rules
Chapter 125 gives the plaintiff evidentiary help most claims do not have.
Section 125.004(a): proof that a listed activity is frequently committed at the place, or that the place is frequently used for one, is prima facie evidence that the defendant knowingly tolerated it.
Section 125.004(b): evidence that persons were arrested for or convicted of listed offences at the place is admissible to show the defendant's knowledge, and the papers and judgments of those arrests or convictions come in.
Section 125.004(c): evidence of the general reputation of the place is admissible to show the nuisance exists.
Section 125.004(e): a previous judgment under the chapter against a landowner is admissible in a later suit to show the owner knowingly tolerated the activity and failed to abate it.
Section 125.004(d) runs the other way, and it protects the owner who cooperates: evidence that the defendant or someone acting at their direction requested law enforcement or emergency assistance is not admissible to show toleration or failure to abate. It may come in for other purposes, such as showing that a listed crime occurred. Evidence that the defendant refused to cooperate with law enforcement is admissible. And posting a sign prohibiting the activity is not conclusive evidence that the owner did not tolerate it.
That subsection matters to both sides. A landlord who calls the police is building the defence; a landlord who never called has none of that protection.
What a plaintiff should consider first
Section 125.002(h) directs that a person who may bring a suit "shall consider, among other factors," whether the property owner, the owner's representative, or the operator or occupant of the place promptly notified law enforcement of criminal acts on the property and cooperated with the investigation.
This is an instruction to the would-be plaintiff, not to the court. An owner who has been calling the police and working with them is the wrong defendant, and the statute says so before the case is filed.
What the claim pays
An injunction — § 125.002(e). If judgment is for the petitioner, the court shall grant an injunction ordering the defendant to abate the nuisance and enjoining them from maintaining or participating in it, and may add reasonable requirements to prevent the place being used that way. Where the action is in rem, the judgment binds the property.
A one-year closure. The same subsection: the judgment "must order that the place where the nuisance exists be closed for one year after the date of judgment."
Contempt for violating the injunction — § 125.002(d). A person who violates a temporary or permanent injunctive order is subject, for civil contempt, to a fine of not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, confinement in jail for not less than 10 nor more than 30 days, or both.
A bond, and forfeiture of it — § 125.003(a). Where a bond condition or an injunctive order is violated, a prosecutor or the attorney general sues on the bond in the name of the state, the whole sum is forfeited as a penalty, and the place is ordered closed for a year from the date of the forfeiture order. Section 125.003(b) lets the party bringing that suit recover investigative costs, court costs, reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and deposition fees.
A human-trafficking notice — § 125.002(f-1). Where the defendant required to post a bond is a hotel, motel or similar lodging establishment and the alleged nuisance is prostitution-related, the bond must also be conditioned on posting, in each lodging unit, a sign carrying a national trafficking hotline number and the contact information for reporting suspicious activity to the Department of Public Safety.
A lis pendens — § 125.002(g). The petitioner may file notice of lis pendens and a certified copy of a court order in the county records, binding subsequent purchasers and lienholders.
Attorney's fees — § 125.005. "In an action brought under this chapter, the court may award a prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees in addition to costs incurred in bringing the action." The award is discretionary and runs both ways, and the court is directed to consider the time and labour involved, the novelty and difficulty of the questions, the attorney's expertise, reputation and ability, and any other relevant factor. The section was added in 2021.
No damages. Chapter 125 abates; it does not compensate.
How long you have to file
There is no limitations period, and the question rarely arises: the claim is about an ongoing condition, and a nuisance that has stopped is one a court has no reason to enjoin.
Speed, and no waiting out the appeal
Section 125.003(c) does two things a defendant will not expect. A person may not continue the enjoined activity pending appeal or trial on the merits. And the appellate court must hear and decide an appeal within 90 days of the injunctive order; if no appeal is taken from a temporary injunction, the parties are entitled to a full trial on the merits within 90 days of it.
Who can be sued
Section 125.002(b): any person who maintains, owns, uses, or is a party to the use of a place for purposes constituting a nuisance — and the plaintiff may also proceed in rem against the place itself.
The subsection names one class of defendant expressly: a council of owners under Property Code chapter 81, or a unit owners' association under chapter 82, may be sued where it maintains, owns, uses or is a party to the use of the condominium's common areas for those purposes.
Common defenses
- No knowing toleration, supported by the § 125.004(d) protection for calling the police.
- Reasonable attempts to abate — eviction proceedings, security measures, cooperation with investigations, trespass warnings.
- The activity is not on the § 125.0015(a) list.
- Not a place to which persons habitually go, as opposed to an isolated incident.
- The bookstore and movie theatre exclusion in § 125.003(e), which bars a suit against an enterprise whose sole business is either.
- The § 125.0015(d) carve-outs, for providers and platforms.
- Federal law, under § 125.0015(e), for activity federal law authorises or regulates.
- Cessation of the activity, which removes the basis for an injunction.
What people get wrong
A private citizen can bring it. This is the most common misunderstanding about chapter 125, and § 125.002(a) is explicit.
No personal injury need be shown — and where it is relevant, economic or monetary loss counts.
Calling the police helps the owner. Section 125.004(d) makes those calls inadmissible against them.
Noise and traffic are not enough. The activity has to be on the statutory list.
Fees run both ways. Section 125.005 lets the court award them to a prevailing party, which includes a property owner who defeats the suit.
It closes the place for a year. That is the statutory consequence of a judgment, not a matter of the court's discretion.
Where it came from
Nuisance abatement statutes came out of Prohibition, when states gave prosecutors a civil route to close saloons that criminal enforcement could not keep shut. Texas kept the mechanism and repurposed it as the target changed — first to gambling and obscenity, then to drug houses in the 1980s and 1990s, then to game rooms, then to massage businesses and hotels used for trafficking.
The recent history is legible in the amendment record. The 2017 sessions added massage establishments, web addresses and computer networks. The 2021 session added the attorney's fee provision, the trafficking hotline sign for lodging establishments, the prior-judgment evidence rule, and the protection for owners who call for help.
That last pairing is the design of the modern chapter. It makes the negligent or complicit owner easier to reach — general reputation is admissible, frequency establishes toleration, a prior judgment carries forward — while giving the owner who cooperates with law enforcement a clear route out. The statute is aimed at the property, and it offers the owner a way to stop being the problem.
Common questions
Can I sue to shut down a drug house next door?
Yes. Section 125.002(a) allows a suit to enjoin and abate a common nuisance to be brought by an individual, in their own name.
Do I have to prove the property hurt me personally?
No. Verification of the petition and proof of personal injury need not be shown, and where personal injury is relevant, economic or monetary loss counts.
What does a judgment do?
It orders the defendant to abate the nuisance, enjoins them from maintaining it, and orders the place closed for one year.
Can I recover damages?
No. Chapter 125 provides abatement and injunctive relief, not compensation. A private nuisance claim is the route to damages.
Are attorney's fees available?
Yes, at the court's discretion, to a prevailing party — either side.
Does it cover a loud, messy neighbour?
No. The activity must be one of the twenty-eight listed in § 125.0015(a). Noise and nuisance in the ordinary sense are a private nuisance claim.