Federal deadline —

The Section 104 compliance checklist.

Four statutory tests, in plain English. What each one requires, what "done" actually looks like, what typically fails — and how to self-verify before you certify.

Print it, share it, adopt it. This checklist is our reading of 42 U.S.C. § 5304(b)(7); it is not a federal standard, and it is not legal advice.

days until the certification takes effect
01The statute

Twenty-nine wordsat the heart of it.

“…the grantee maintains, on a publicly accessible website, a searchable database that identifies all parcels of undeveloped land owned by the grantee.”
42 U.S.C. § 5304(b)(7), added by Public Law 119-101 — the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, signed July 11, 2026. Effective .

From that date, maintaining the database is a certification a grantee makes in order to receive CDBG funds. It applies to every entitlement city, urban county, and state CDBG program. HUD has not issued implementing guidance; the four tests below are our reading of the statutory text, published so a planner can adopt, narrow, or reject them.

02The four tests

Each one, expanded intowhat "done" looks like.

Every test has the same shape: the statutory language, what compliance concretely looks like, the failure modes we see most often, and a two-minute self-verification step. Walk them in order — earlier tests structure the answer to later ones.

  1. 01

    Publicly accessible

    A resident can find it starting from your own website.

    "…the grantee maintains, on a publicly accessible website…" — the database has to sit on a public site the resident can actually reach.

    What "done" looks like

    • Linked from the jurisdiction’s own homepage, or from the Planning / Housing / Land department page a resident would look at first.
    • The link text says what the thing is — "Public land inventory" or "Undeveloped land database" — not a filename or a project code.
    • A logged-out visitor from a phone can find it inside thirty seconds without knowing the URL.

    Common pitfalls

    • Buried in a PDF library four clicks deep, discoverable only via search inside the site.
    • Hosted on a third-party portal the jurisdiction’s own site never links to.
    • Behind a login, a captcha, or an email-gated download.
    Self-verify

    Open an incognito window. Go to your jurisdiction’s homepage. Try to reach the database in under thirty seconds without using the URL bar.

  2. 02

    Searchable

    A queryable database, not a posted PDF or spreadsheet.

    "…a searchable database that identifies all parcels…" — the artifact has to be a queryable database, not a document listing parcels.

    What "done" looks like

    • A web interface where a resident can query at least by address, neighborhood, and acreage, and see the parcels that match.
    • Every result carries a parcel identifier (APN/PIN) and a link to the county assessor record for verification.
    • The search is live — no downloads required to interact with the data.

    Common pitfalls

    • A PDF titled "Vacant Land Inventory 2026" — a document, not a database.
    • An Excel or CSV export as the only artifact — data, not a searchable interface.
    • A GIS map viewer with no search field, only pan-and-zoom.
    • A static HTML table with hundreds of rows and no filter.
    Self-verify

    Type an address you own or know into the tool. It should return a result set filtered to matching parcels, not a full-page reload of everything.

  3. 03

    Grantee-owned

    Land the jurisdiction itself owns — not the county, not the land bank.

    "…all parcels of undeveloped land owned by the grantee." — the database is scoped to the jurisdiction as titleholder, not to every public parcel in its footprint.

    What "done" looks like

    • Every parcel resolves to the jurisdiction’s legal name in the county assessor’s ownership record.
    • Adjacent entities (redevelopment authority, dependent housing authority, land bank) are either excluded, or included with an explicit label so a reader can tell them apart.
    • A methodology note names which controlled entities are and are not rolled in, and why.

    Common pitfalls

    • Rolling redevelopment-authority parcels in silently, because the authority reports to the mayor.
    • Including school-district, park-district, or transit-agency land, which the statute does not cover.
    • Excluding wholly-controlled housing-authority land without saying so — the reader can’t tell whether it’s missing or intentionally out of scope.
    Self-verify

    Pick five random parcels from the database and look each one up in the county assessor’s record. Every owner name should match the jurisdiction, or carry a label explaining the adjacency.

  4. 04

    Undeveloped identified

    Vacant parcels distinguishable from developed holdings.

    "…undeveloped land…" — the statute doesn’t define "undeveloped" and HUD has not issued implementing guidance. The compliance decision is defining it publicly and applying it consistently.

    What "done" looks like

    • A published methodology names the criterion — assessor use code, absence of building footprint, zoned-but-unbuilt, or a written combination.
    • Every parcel in the database meets that criterion. Developed municipal buildings, active parks, streetscape, and right-of-way are excluded.
    • The methodology page is linked from the database itself so a resident can check the definition without hunting.

    Common pitfalls

    • Publishing every parcel the jurisdiction owns, including city hall and active parks.
    • Applying an unpublished internal definition — the reader can’t audit what "undeveloped" means to your staff.
    • Using a definition so narrow that qualifying parcels are excluded (e.g., "no permit in the last five years" cuts out long-vacant lots).
    Self-verify

    Read the published definition. Walk five parcels in the database against it. If any parcel fails your own definition, either the parcel or the definition needs to change.

None of the above is legal advice. Confirm findings with your own records and counsel before certifying.

03The timeline

Working backward fromOctober 1.

These are prep milestones — not statutory deadlines. Your jurisdiction certifies on the effective date; everything before then is scheduling.

T-60

Assemble

Pull the parcel list from the county assessor. Attribute ownership to the jurisdiction. Flag adjacent entities.

T-30

Define

Write and publish your "undeveloped" methodology. Review the parcel list against it. Cut what doesn’t qualify; add what does.

T-10

Publish

Stand the database up on your own site with a search interface. Link it from the homepage. Walk the four tests one more time.

Skip the assembly step

We'll buildyour inventory. Free.

The T-60 assembly is the largest single chunk of work. We do it from county records, format it to the Section 104 reference schema, and hand you the hosted searchable table — plus CSV, GeoJSON, JSON, and a methodology memo for your file.

FAQ

Questions from planners and counsel

Does using this checklist make our jurisdiction compliant?

No. Your jurisdiction certifies compliance; we do not and cannot. This checklist is our reading of the statutory text, published so you can adopt, narrow, or reject it. The certification decision is yours and your counsel’s.

When does the requirement take effect?

October 1, 2026. From that date, maintaining the database is a certification a CDBG grantee makes to receive funds under 42 U.S.C. § 5304(b)(7), added by Public Law 119-101 — the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, signed July 11, 2026.

Who does the requirement apply to?

Every CDBG entitlement city, urban county, and state CDBG program. HUD publishes the current entitlement grantee list annually; the state programs cover non-entitlement jurisdictions within each state.

HUD hasn’t defined "undeveloped." What should we use?

Publish your own definition. The compliance decision is not choosing the "right" criterion — the statute doesn’t name one — but naming a criterion, publishing it, and applying it consistently to every parcel in the database. Assessor use codes, absence of a building footprint, and zoning status are the three criteria we see most commonly. Your staff and counsel pick the one that fits the jurisdiction’s inventory.

Does a PDF vacant-land inventory satisfy the requirement?

No. The statute requires a searchable database. A posted PDF or spreadsheet is a document listing parcels; it is not a queryable interface. See the "Searchable" test above for what "done" looks like.

What about land held by our redevelopment authority or a dependent district?

The statute scopes the requirement to the grantee. Title questions are yours to resolve. The defensible approach is to either exclude adjacent entities cleanly or include them with an explicit label so a reader can tell the difference.

Can Buildability build the database for us?

Yes, free. We assemble the parcel list from county records, format it to the Section 104 reference schema, and hand you a hosted searchable table you can link or embed — plus CSV, GeoJSON, JSON exports, and a methodology memo for your file. Your staff confirms line by line. See /cdbg for the full offer.

Is creating the database a CDBG-eligible activity?

Yes. Creating and maintaining the database is a CDBG-eligible activity under 42 U.S.C. § 5305(a)(27). Many jurisdictions can procure services at this scale as a micro-purchase under their own written procurement policy — check your policy and the current threshold at 2 CFR 200.1.

20 days.

Find your jurisdiction in the national readiness index — see the four-test verdict on your neighbors, and take the free assembled inventory for your own.

Open the readiness index

Confirm findings with your own records and counsel before certifying.