A recent federal court filing raises questions about the constitutionality of a city ordinance that requires private property owners to obtain permits before removing trees from their own land. The case highlights concerns over property rights, public safety, and the procedures used by local government to enforce urban canopy regulations.
The complaint was filed by Peter Nwaizuzu in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 16, 2026, naming the City of Atlanta as defendant.
According to the filing, the City of Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance prohibits any person from removing or injuring trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of six inches or greater on private property without first obtaining a permit from city officials. This requirement applies regardless of whether trees are dead, diseased, dying, or hazardous. When permits are granted, property owners must comply with conditions such as replanting trees that meet specific standards or paying monetary recompense into the city’s Tree Trust Fund. The complaint argues that these requirements are imposed “without any individualized determination that they are proportional to the environmental impact caused by a specific property owner’s specific tree removal.”
The plaintiff claims that this system mirrors another municipal ordinance previously struck down by a federal appellate court in F.P. Development, LLC v. Charter Township of Canton, Michigan. In that case, similar permit and mitigation requirements were found to violate constitutional protections under Supreme Court precedents including Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard.
Nwaizuzu alleges that Atlanta’s ordinance grants broad discretion to city officials—specifically the City Arborist—to approve or deny permits and impose conditions without clear procedural safeguards or ascertainable standards. Terms like “environmental impact,” “specimen tree,” and “forest ecosystem” are described in the complaint as vague and undefined.
The legal challenge also addresses how enforcement is carried out by city personnel who can issue citations and call upon police to halt tree removals in progress. Each unauthorized removal is treated as a separate offense subject to fines and penalties; documented cases cited in the complaint mention fines exceeding $1,300 per tree removed without a permit.
One incident detailed in the filing involves three trees on Nwaizuzu’s property being trimmed by Georgia Power contractors during routine utility maintenance—a process over which he claims he had no control or prior notice. Despite not authorizing or participating in this work, Nwaizuzu reports receiving citations totaling approximately $3,000 from city officials who did not investigate whether he was responsible for the trimming before imposing penalties.
The complaint further contends that requiring permits even for hazardous trees creates public safety risks by delaying necessary action during emergencies such as storms: “A property owner who identifies a leaning, rotting, or storm-damaged tree towering over a child’s bedroom cannot act immediately to remove it.” The document references fatal incidents where falling trees killed residents after warnings went unheeded due to permitting delays.
In his legal arguments, Nwaizuzu asserts violations of several constitutional provisions:
– The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment (as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment), arguing that prohibiting tree removal constitutes an uncompensated regulatory taking;
– The unconstitutional conditions doctrine established under Nollan/Dolan/Koontz Supreme Court rulings;
– Substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment due to arbitrary government interference;
– Equal protection violations stemming from inconsistent application among similarly situated property owners;
– Vagueness doctrine concerns related to undefined terms granting unbounded discretion;
– Procedural due process violations based on lack of adequate notice or opportunity for hearing before penalties are imposed.
Nwaizuzu seeks declaratory judgment declaring Atlanta’s Tree Protection Ordinance unconstitutional both on its face and as applied; injunctive relief prohibiting its enforcement against him; nominal damages; attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys’ names are not specified within this portion of the filing. The case is identified as Case 1:26-cv-01428-WMR.
Source: 126cv01428_Peter_Nwaizuzu_v_City_of_Atlanta_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Georgia.pdf
