ADA Drive-By Lawsuits in Oregon: How Parking Lots Get Targeted

The Lawsuit That Starts From a Car Window

A "drive-by" ADA lawsuit is exactly what it sounds like. A plaintiff or their investigator drives through a parking lot, notes the visible accessibility violations, and files a complaint or sends a demand letter, often without ever entering the business. Parking lots are the favorite target because the violations are visible from outside, easy to document with a photo, and require no insider knowledge to spot.

For an Oregon business owner, the first sign of trouble is usually a letter from an attorney. By then, the violation has already been documented. The way to avoid the letter is to remove the things a drive-by review looks for. Our ADA parking compliance guide for Oregon covers the full standard; this page explains how the lawsuits actually work and how to make your lot a poor target.

Why Serial Plaintiffs Focus on Parking

A small number of plaintiffs and law firms file a large share of ADA access cases, and they tend to specialize. Parking lots fit their model for practical reasons:

• Violations are visible. You do not need to go inside to see a missing sign, a faded symbol, or a too-narrow aisle.
• Documentation is easy. A single photo from the drive aisle captures the evidence.
• Standards are objective. A sign at 48 inches instead of 60 is measurably non-compliant. There is little room to argue.
• Many lots are non-compliant. Older lots that drifted out of compliance over the years are everywhere, so the pool of targets is large.

This is not about whether anyone with a disability was actually harmed at your specific business. Under the access provisions of the law, the existence of the barrier is the issue. That is why a lot can draw a complaint even if no customer ever raised a concern.

What a Drive-By Review Looks For

The violations that trigger demand letters are the visible ones. A drive-by review is essentially scanning for the items on a basic compliance checklist, the same ones in our 10 most common ADA parking violations page:

• Missing or wrong-height signs. Signs must be mounted at least 60 inches to the bottom. A missing sign or one mounted low is an instant flag. Our ADA parking signage and mounting page covers the spec.
• Faded pavement symbols. A worn International Symbol of Accessibility reads as non-compliant.
• Missing van-accessible designation. No "Van Accessible" sign where one is required.
• Too few accessible spaces. A short count is visible to anyone who totals the lot.
• Unmarked or blocked access aisles. Missing hatching, no NO PARKING text, or a cart corral in the aisle.
• No accessible route. Accessible spaces with no clear path to the entrance.

Every one of these is visible from a car. None requires entering the building. That is what makes them the targets.

The Economics: Settle vs. Fix

When the demand letter arrives, the owner faces a choice, and the economics usually point one direction.

Settling a drive-by claim commonly involves a payment to the plaintiff plus their attorney fees, and the law in access cases allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover attorney fees, which is what makes the cases economically attractive to file. Settlements vary widely but frequently land in the several-thousand to low-tens-of-thousands range once fees are included. And crucially, settling does not fix the lot. You still have to make the corrections, or you remain exposed to the next plaintiff.

Fixing the lot, by contrast, is often a striping and signage job. Bringing accessible spaces, aisles, symbols, and signs up to standard is ordinary parking-lot work. The owner who fixes the lot proactively pays once, for work they arguably needed to do anyway, and removes the target. The owner who waits often pays for the settlement and the fix.

Oregon-Specific Exposure

Oregon claims can proceed under federal ADA and under Oregon's own accessibility and civil rights provisions. Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) administers state public-accommodation law, which gives complainants an additional avenue beyond a federal court filing. The practical effect is that an Oregon lot can face exposure from more than one direction, and the state framework does not require the federal court's procedural steps to start a complaint.

This is general information, not legal advice. If you receive a demand letter, talk to an attorney. But the prevention side is squarely in a paving and striping contractor's lane: remove the visible violations before anyone documents them.

Prevention Is a Striping Project

The most effective defense against a drive-by lawsuit is a lot that gives a drive-by review nothing to photograph. That means:

• Correct accessible-space count for the lot size
• Properly dimensioned spaces and aisles with full hatching
• Sharp, unfaded pavement symbols
• Compliant signs at 60 inches, with van designations where required
• A clear accessible route to the entrance

A proactive ADA compliance audit process identifies exactly which of these are out of compliance, and a restripe-and-sign project corrects them. The cost of that work is modest and predictable compared with the cost and disruption of a lawsuit. The lot that is right does not get the letter.