Can the Government Prevent People From Rebuilding After a Wildfire?

Examining the laws and regulations surrounding eminent domain and the government’s ability to limit property rights on behalf of the public good.

In some cases, yes, the government can prevent property owners from rebuilding after a wildfire. This issue is front and center for many people who owned residential and/or commercial property affected by the 2025 California wildfires. As of January 31, 2025, these wildfires have killed at least 29 people, forced more than 200,000 to evacuate, destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures, and burned over 57,000 acres of land.

Economics may also prevent people from rebuilding after a wildfire. Insurance may cover renovation and rebuilding costs. But insurance barely covers toxic substance remediation, like asbestos remediation. 

Many of the aforementioned destroyed structures were laced with asbestos, because they were built before 1980. The partial destruction exposed asbestos fibers to the air, where they could cause one of several serious diseases. If possible, many owners may prefer to pass remediation costs to a developer or other buyer.

At AsbestosClaims.Law, we’ve seen the effects of wildfires before, most recently in Maui in 2023. Those fires released deadly asbestos fibers into the air and also caused them to seep into the ground. Asbestos poisoning is a sad case all around. Usually, construction companies recklessly used a toxic substance as an insulator, individuals fall victim to exposure-related diseases, and property owners could be liable for damages.

Post-Wildfire Rebuilding Limits

Authorities usually impose rebuilding restrictions to reduce the risk of future devastation, protect lives, and promote more resilient communities. However, these measures can be contentious, especially if they limit property owners’ rights or economic recovery.

Land Use and Zoning Limits

Frequently, a wildfire transforms a normal residential or commercial district into a high-risk fire area, just like a flood creates a flood zone. Authorities can almost unilaterally change zoning laws, and in these situations, they often exercise this power.

After a wildfire, the government may prevent rebuilding in certain areas if the land is considered too hazardous or unsuitable for construction. This rezoning could include flood zones, areas prone to future wildfires, or locations with unstable soil.

Building Code Amendments

We mentioned legal and economic forces above. Frequently, post-wildfire building code alterations combine both factors.

Authorities often impose additional requirements on new or renovated structures, such as fire-resistant materials, defensible space around homes, or other safety features. In some cases, if the costs of compliance are too high, property owners may find rebuilding unfeasible.

Usually, building codes are much harder to change than zoning laws. An asbestos exposure lawyer often advocates for property owners during this process, so owners don’t seem like whiners.

Financial Considerations

This government intervention may favor homeowners, if they’re willing to relocate. If the cost of rebuilding is deemed to be too high or impractical due to the risk of future fires, the government might step in to help residents relocate or find alternative housing. More on that below.

Environmental Safeguards

Wildfires stress the natural environment as well as commercial and residential buildings. So, the government might limit rebuilding to protect the environment. For example, rebuilding in areas that are close to wetlands, endangered species habitats, or other protected areas may be restricted or prohibited. These limits often include size and material regulations.

Additional remediation requirements are another example. To prevent asbestos from contaminating the environment, authorities may require property owners to remediate the soil and water as well as their homes and businesses. These additional requirements could exponentially increase the cost of rebuilding.

Public Safety Concerns

Following a wildfire, authorities often take steps to protect people, as well as the environment. Many times, the government limits the number of building permits, to change the population density and make the area more accessible to emergency services. Fire trucks that don’t wade through traffic jams reach their destinations much quicker.

Insurance Matters

This effect is indirect. Homeowners insurance companies often use a wildfire as a pretext to increase insurance rates, citing the increased risk. If the government has otherwise prevented people from rebuilding after a wildfire, as outlined above, the increased risk may be minimal. But that doesn’t matter to an insurance company.

As if that’s not enough, in some cases, insurance companies may refuse to provide coverage in certain high-risk areas, making it difficult for homeowners to rebuild.

Case Study: Mountain View Mobile Homes, Globe, AZ

California wildfire damage, asbestos poisoning, cost concerns, and public safety is not an unprecedented situation. In fact, something very similar happened in neighboring Arizona.

In the 1980s, as asbestos use waned, the Metate Asbestos Corporation’s chrysotile asbestos mill in Globe closed. A real estate developer bought the seventeen-acre tract and turned it into a mobile home park, one of several Mountain View Mobile Home parks throughout the country.

Asbestos mills convert raw asbestos into a refined product, which in this case was chrysotile (white) asbestos. This product, which the EPA banned in 2024, accounts for about 80 percent of the commercial asbestos use in the United States.

During its heyday in the 1960s and 70s, this mill processed thousands of pounds of asbestos, contaminating the air and soil. The EPA placed this location on the NPL (national priorities list) of Superfund sites and completed cleanup in 1988. Now, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) periodically inspects the site to ensure on-going protection of human health and the environment.

Cleanup and monitoring basically makes a site uninhabitable. The EPA footed most of the relocation bill. Most residents received 120 percent of the area’s average income for one month, plus an $8,000 “special circumstances” payment, if the household included an older adult, disabled person, or dependent child.

Similar provisions are in place in California and most other states. So, residents and business-owners who are unable to rebuild, either legally or economically, may be eligible for relocation assistance.

If this option is available, we strongly encourage residents to at least consider it. As mentioned, asbestos exposure diseases are truly horrible and the liability risk is significant. Relocation may be the best way to address these issues.