September 2, 2026
July 27, 2026 Code-Violation Filing Raises Questions About 2014 Renovations, 2023 Intercom Replacement and 2026 Parking-Lot Work
LOS ANGELES — A tenant at an 18-unit apartment building on Hi Point Street is challenging the City of Los Angeles over what he describes as years of unresolved building-code, accessibility and housing-accommodation issues.
In a redacted July 27, 2026 code-violation complaint attachment, tenant Geary J. Johnson alleges that City employees have failed to adequately investigate or enforce complaints involving accessibility, maintenance and alterations at the property. Johnson further alleges that his complaints have been affected by racial discrimination and retaliation. Those allegations have been reported to the appropriate agencies and remain allegations by the tenant.
Accessibility Issues Identified
The complaint identifies several conditions Johnson says remain unresolved, including:
- No wheelchair-height accessible peephole or door viewer in his apartment;
- No accessible parking stall in the property’s parking lot;
- No accessible indoor intercom/door-entry interface in his unit;
- Repair or replacement of the apartment door viewer; and
- Repair or replacement of the unit’s intercom door-entry interface.
Johnson says his original complaints concerning the intercom system and parking date back to 2014 and that, beginning approximately in 2023, the issues increasingly became requests for reasonable housing accommodations.
According to the filing, complaints and requests have been communicated over the years to City Council members, the Mayor, code-enforcement and building-code personnel through emails, postal correspondence, court documents and City Council agenda filings.
The Central Question: Were Accessibility Requirements Triggered by Later Work?
A major issue raised by the complaint is whether later construction and replacement work at the property may have created obligations beyond those applicable when the building was originally constructed.
Johnson specifically asks the City to determine whether 2014 alterations triggered current accessibility requirements, whether the 2023 replacement of the building’s original wired intercom with an Akuvox system triggered accessibility obligations, and whether the 2026 repaving and restriping of the parking lot required an accessible parking space.
The complaint also asks whether the property’s receipt of government financial assistance creates additional obligations under federal disability laws and whether the tenant’s requested accommodations qualify as reasonable accommodations under applicable housing laws.
Demand for Specific Legal Authority
Rather than simply disputing the City’s position, the filing asks City officials to identify the specific law supporting their determination that the property is exempt from current accessibility requirements.
Among the questions presented are:
What specific code or regulation establishes that this property has “non-conforming rights” exempting it from current accessibility requirements?
The complaint also asks whether the City reviewed building permits and inspections associated with the 2014 renovations, 2023 intercom replacement and 2026 work, and whether accessibility reviews were performed.
Questions About the 2026 Parking-Lot Work
The filing specifically raises the issue of whether the recent parking-lot reconstruction and restriping required accessibility improvements.
Johnson asks whether the City evaluated the parking work under the California Building Code and whether the work triggered a requirement for an accessible parking space.
The issue is significant because the complaint alleges that the property has no marked accessible parking stall or accessibility signage.
Questions About the Intercom Replacement
Another central issue concerns the property’s transition from an older wired intercom system to a modern Akuvox system.
The complaint states that the original wired system was apparently replaced with a modern Akuvox system and asks whether voluntarily replacing a building communication system constitutes an alteration that may be subject to current accessibility requirements.
Johnson argues that the relevant question is not simply when the apartment building was constructed, but whether subsequent work—including replacement of building systems—created new accessibility obligations.
Recently Renovated Apartment Also Questioned
The filing additionally asks the City to investigate work performed in Unit 8, which Johnson identifies as an apartment other than his own.
The complaint asks:
- Was a building permit issued?
- Was the work reviewed by the Building Department?
- Was an accessibility review performed?
- Was the work classified as an alteration, repair or reconstruction?
- Were accessibility requirements triggered under the California Building Code?
The filing requests that the City determine whether permits were issued, inspections were performed and accessibility requirements were considered.
Complaint Alleges City Inaction and Retaliation
Johnson alleges that his complaints are being ignored because of racial discrimination and retaliation and accuses City departments and employees of abuse of process, abuse of authority and abuse of discretion.
The complaint states that Johnson believes City employees have acted in concert with the property owner. These are allegations contained in the tenant’s filing and have not been independently established by the complaint itself.
Johnson states that his concerns have also been reported to the California Civil Rights Department in complaints involving the City of Los Angeles and the property owner.
Separate Property-Damage Allegation
The filing also contains a separate allegation concerning Johnson’s automobile.
Johnson alleges that adhesive material placed on the vehicle damaged the driver’s-side window and characterizes the incident as potentially motivated by racial hostility and retaliation. He states that the Los Angeles Police Department was notified.
Owner’s Financial Interests Raised
The complaint estimates the property’s gross receipts at approximately $37,000 per month and property taxes at approximately $12,000 per month.
It also states that a complaint was filed with the California Department of Real Estate concerning the management company’s license.
Tenant Seeks Answers, Not Simply Enforcement
At the heart of the July 27 filing is a request for the City to explain the legal and factual basis for its decisions.
Johnson asks City officials to identify the specific code sections and factual findings supporting any conclusion that the property is exempt from current accessibility requirements.
He specifically requests answers concerning:
2014: Whether renovations constituted alterations triggering accessibility requirements.
2023: Whether replacement of the original intercom system triggered accessibility obligations.
2026: Whether parking-lot repaving and restriping triggered accessible-parking requirements.
Unit 8: Whether the recently renovated apartment was properly permitted, inspected and reviewed for accessibility.
Disability accommodations: Whether the requested modifications qualify as reasonable accommodations under federal or state housing law.
Government assistance: Whether the property’s receipt of government financial assistance creates additional accessibility obligations.
A Broader Question About Code Enforcement
The complaint points to the City’s stated code-enforcement jurisdiction over areas including maintenance, alterations, additions, accessibility, electrical work, fire safety, habitability, illegal construction, plumbing, structural hazards, tenant habitability and related building conditions.
Johnson’s position is that the City should therefore explain, in writing, which legal provisions apply, which do not apply, and why.
The July 27 filing ultimately asks for documented answers rather than an assumption that the property’s age alone resolves the accessibility questions.
The dispute now centers on a fundamental question: When an older apartment building undergoes later renovations, replacement of building systems, parking-lot reconstruction or other substantial work, do those later activities trigger accessibility obligations—and did the City actually investigate that question before determining that no further enforcement was warranted?
Media/Public Information: The allegations and questions summarized above are drawn from the tenant’s July 27, 2026 redacted code-violation complaint city number 999954.
LA Rent Control (RAC) and Permits (LADBS) 