Historic preservation in the United States operates within a legal framework that is, by design, incomplete. The landmark National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) established the foundational architecture of federal preservation law — the National Register of Historic Places, the State Historic Preservation Offices, the advisory review process — but it deliberately stopped short of creating a federal mandate to prohibit demolition or alteration of historic properties by private owners.
Nearly six decades later, that framework remains in place, but the landscape around it has shifted significantly. 2025 has brought meaningful changes to several of the mechanisms that actually protect historic resources on the ground — and meaningful threats to others. For anyone engaged in preservation work in the American South, understanding these developments is essential.
The Foundation: NHPA and the National Register
The NHPA established three primary mechanisms for federal engagement with historic preservation. First, it created the National Register of Historic Places — the official list of properties determined to be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Listing on the National Register confers recognition, makes properties eligible for certain federal programs, and — crucially — triggers the Section 106 review process when federal undertakings are involved.
Second, it created the network of State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), which administer National Register nominations, certify rehabilitation projects for the Historic Tax Credit program, and serve as the primary interlocutors between the federal government and preservation interests at the state level.
Third, it established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), an independent federal agency that oversees the Section 106 process and advises the President and Congress on preservation matters.
Flowchart: The Section 106 Process — federal agency proposes undertaking → identify historic properties → assess effects → consult with SHPO, THPO, ACHP, and interested parties → resolve adverse effects or proceed to formal objection. Clean, clear diagram suitable for non-specialist readers.
The Historic Tax Credit: Recent Developments
The most powerful financial tool available to preservation advocates is the Federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) — a 20% federal income tax credit available to owners of income-producing certified historic structures who undertake a certified rehabilitation, meaning one that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The HTC has an extraordinary track record. Since its creation in 1981, it has leveraged more than $131 billion in private investment in historic rehabilitation projects nationwide, generated more than 2.4 million jobs, and preserved more than 47,000 historic buildings. In the American South, where large inventories of historically significant commercial and industrial buildings often require substantial investment to return to productive use, the HTC has been particularly important.
In fiscal year 2024, rehabilitation projects receiving preliminary approval under the HTC program totaled an estimated $10.7 billion — a figure that reflects both the program's scale and the robust demand for historic rehabilitation investment. Advocates are currently pressing Congress to pass the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act (HTC-GO), which would, among other provisions, increase the credit to 30% for smaller projects (rehabilitation expenditures under $2.5 million) and eliminate the basis reduction requirement that currently complicates the use of the credit in affordable housing transactions.
Bar chart: Annual Federal Historic Tax Credit rehabilitation investment approved by region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West) 2015–2024. Source: National Park Service Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit. Highlight Southern states' share.
Section 106: A Process Under Pressure
Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to consult with SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and other interested parties before making final decisions. The process does not guarantee preservation — it guarantees consideration. But that guarantee has been a meaningful brake on the most cavalier federal decisions, and it has produced negotiated mitigations that have protected or documented thousands of properties that might otherwise have been lost without comment.
In recent years, the Section 106 process has come under pressure from two directions. From the right, proposals have circulated to streamline or curtail the consultation process in the name of administrative efficiency, particularly in connection with large infrastructure projects where Section 106 consultation timelines are sometimes cited as contributing to project delays. From the left, advocates have argued that the process systematically undervalues properties associated with historically marginalized communities, and that THPOs and community organizations representing minority heritage interests are insufficiently empowered within the existing framework.
Both critiques contain legitimate concerns. The challenge for preservation advocates is to defend the process's essential function — ensuring that historic resources receive meaningful consideration in federal decision-making — while acknowledging the genuine equity issues that have limited whose heritage the process has historically protected.
State and Local Protections: The Real Frontline
For most historic properties, the real protection — or the real threat — exists at the state and local level, not the federal level. A National Register listing does not prevent a private owner from demolishing a historic building. What does provide meaningful protection is local historic district designation, which typically subjects proposed alterations and demolitions to review by a local historic preservation commission (HPC) before a permit is issued.
The strength of local protection varies enormously. Some jurisdictions have strong design review standards, trained professional staff, and the political will to deny demolition permits for significant properties. Others have commissions with no professional staff, vague standards, and political cultures that consistently defer to property owners' development ambitions.
Several Southern states have enacted demolition delay ordinances — provisions that allow HPCs to delay the effective date of a demolition permit for a specified period (sometimes as long as 365 days) to allow time to explore alternatives, seek a preservation buyer, or negotiate a mitigation. These ordinances can be powerful tools in the right circumstances. They are less effective where there is no organized preservation constituency able to use the delay period productively.
Choropleth map: Southern states color-coded by the strength of their state historic preservation enabling legislation — considering state Historic Tax Credit programs, local designation authority, demolition delay provisions, and state agency funding levels. Source: National Trust for Historic Preservation research.
What's at Stake for the South
The American South faces some of the most acute preservation pressures of any region in the country. Sun Belt growth is accelerating development in exactly the communities where historic resources are most concentrated. Many Southern states have underinvested in preservation infrastructure — SHPOs with inadequate staffing, no state HTC program, limited local designation capacity.
At the same time, the South has extraordinary potential for the preservation-led economic development that the Historic Tax Credit is designed to catalyze. Downtown revitalization, adaptive reuse of historic industrial buildings for housing and creative economy uses, heritage tourism — these represent significant economic opportunities for communities that contain significant historic resources but have experienced long-term disinvestment.
The policy environment of 2025 is fluid. Preservationists who understand the legal tools available to them — and who are engaged in the policy conversations that will determine whether those tools are strengthened or weakened — are in the best position to protect what remains.