Are You a Nairobi Landlord? Follow These Rules or Face Jail

Nairobi County has intensified enforcement of long-standing building regulations in the Central Business District, issuing compliance notices and warning of prosecutions and closures for persistent violations.

County officials say the recent inspections are not introducing new requirements but enforcing laws that have existed for decades and govern how buildings are maintained, altered and used. Late last year, the county issued repainting and compliance notices to 158 buildings in the CBD. Only a small number complied within the required period, while many sought extensions or failed to respond.

Several properties, particularly along Kirinyaga Road and nearby commercial areas, have since been flagged for possible legal action. Some landlords have dismissed repainting orders as cosmetic measures intended to raise revenue.

County authorities reject that claim, stating that the directives are grounded in statutory obligations under the Public Health Act and the Physical and Land Use Planning Act of 2019. They say these laws impose broad responsibilities on property owners that extend beyond appearance to safety, health and accessibility.

Lawyer Alfred Ndambiri, who has practised for nearly 30 years, says the penalties now being applied are well established in law. He notes that Kenya’s planning and public health statutes, some enacted more than 70 years ago, clearly regulate land use and building standards.

Current planning law requires development permission for any construction, extension or alteration, with approvals based on location, intended use and building height. In Nairobi, these requirements include provisions for access and safety in multi-storey buildings.

Structures above specified heights must have more than one staircase, designated fire exits, adequate lighting and lifts that accommodate people with disabilities. According to Mr Ndambiri, these standards are intended to protect safety and dignity, not to create administrative hurdles.

While counties are mandated to review architectural plans before granting approval, enforcement has often been inconsistent. Many buildings were approved under limited oversight or later modified without authorisation. Unapproved additional floors, balconies and temporary extensions have become common in the CBD, despite increasing fire and structural risks.

Officials and experts stress that the age of a building does not exempt it from compliance. County by-laws require regular repainting, typically at least once a year, as part of routine maintenance. Beyond aesthetics, paint protects buildings from moisture, mould and deterioration that can affect public health.

Non-compliance can result in fines or short custodial sentences, depending on the offence. Repainting is often the first issue identified during inspections, but it is rarely the only one. County teams frequently find more serious violations, including missing fire clearance certificates, inadequate emergency exits and structural defects that may require immediate evacuation.

Other common breaches involve poor waste management, illegal water discharge, excessive noise, overcrowding and lack of accessibility. Administrative failures, such as unpaid land rates, expired business permits and unauthorised signage, also fall under county enforcement.

Mr Ndambiri attributes widespread non-compliance to years of weak enforcement, corruption and public indifference. He says that although the laws have remained in force before and after independence, they were often ignored by both property owners and authorities. As a result, compliance became reactive, prompted only by inspections rather than treated as a continuous obligation.

Uncertainty over permits has further complicated the situation. Even routine maintenance, including repainting, requires county approval and usually a fee. While temporary waivers were previously granted, landlords now face penalties for carrying out work without authorisation, contributing to disputes and resistance.

Engineering consultant Michael Ochieng points to weaknesses in how private developments are managed. Unlike public projects, which are subject to formal contracts and multiple layers of oversight, private buildings are often controlled solely by owners. Contractors and professionals may be selected based on cost rather than competence, and those who insist on safety standards risk losing work.

This approach undermines accountability and sidelines professional supervision. Regular structural assessments, fire safety checks and maintenance are frequently neglected to reduce costs. Renovations are carried out with minimal oversight, leading to unsafe practices such as placing heavy loads on floors not designed to support them.

Mr Ochieng warns that many buildings remain in use not because they are well maintained, but because their original designs included generous safety margins. Over time, neglect erodes those margins, increasing the risk of failure. County officials argue that current enforcement efforts are exposing existing problems rather than creating new ones. They say consistent application of the law is necessary to protect public safety, improve working conditions and address health risks in the CBD.

For property owners, the crackdown signals stricter accountability as counties seek to strengthen compliance and increase internal revenue. Experts say the underlying issue is the perception of compliance as optional or occasional. They argue that buildings remain safe through continuous maintenance, professional oversight and adherence to the law, not through last-minute responses to inspections.

Without a change in approach, they warn, the CBD will continue to cycle between neglect and enforcement, with public safety at risk.