For a Nashville property, choose the record object before searching. Use ePermits for the current permit route described by Metro, and use the Codes Violation History Search instructions for a CityWorks Request for Service, or RFS, complaint record. A miss for one record type does not settle the other.
The former Codes permit-report page now says those reports have not been available through that portal since May 18, 2026. Do not use its empty, unsubmitted form as a current search result. Its older help text can still help clean an address or parcel identifier before trying the current route or making a focused records request.
Decide whether you need an RFS or a permit record
Metro’s violation-history page describes an RFS record as a complaint of code violations. It documents searches by property address, assessor’s parcel number or RFS case number and says that specific database covers the previous two years. The page was last updated in 2021, so treat the two-year statement as the scope of that documented RFS route, not as a retention rule for every Metro record or proof of current portal coverage.
Permit applications, issued permits, sign-offs and inspections belong to the permit record chain. Metro’s Public Records and Information page directs property-address research for construction, trade and other listed Codes records to ePermits. Its instructions say the Permit Summary’s Available Reports area can provide inspection and permit-tracking copies. These steps describe the official route; no individual lookup or report download was verified for this guide.
Keep these questions separate:
- Complaint question: Was an RFS complaint recorded, and what does that case record say?
- Application question: Was a permit application filed, and what stage did it reach?
- Issuance question: Was a permit issued for the described work?
- Inspection question: Which inspections or sign-offs are documented?
One record does not answer all four. A complaint does not establish that a permit was required or missing, and a permit application does not establish issuance or final inspection.
Reuse legacy formatting guidance, not the retired report form
The legacy Codes permit-report page carries the 2026 retirement notice and points current users to ePermits. Its historical search help records several useful identifier rules:
- search a known permit number when available;
- use the street number and street name, adding only the needed direction or street type;
- remove the suite if a no-result search included one, because suite values were not populated for every record;
- enter the map-and-parcel value without spaces or punctuation while preserving every leading and trailing zero; and
- avoid an unnecessarily broad wildcard search, which the legacy help says may time out.
These are recovery clues, not verified controls for the current ePermits interface. Preserve the original identifier alongside any normalized version so staff can see what changed. Our permit-number lookup guide explains how to carry an uncertain number without silently converting it into a different record.
Work through a complaint-versus-permit mismatch
Consider a fictional mixed-use address with a known RFS case, an old permit reference, and a suite number on a lease. The documented RFS route does not display the older complaint expected by the researcher, while a permit search using the full suite also produces no useful match.
That pair of misses does not show that the complaint never existed or that the work was unpermitted. The RFS page documents a specific two-year window, and the legacy permit help warns that suite data may be incomplete. The researcher should preserve the RFS number, retry the permit identifier without the suite, retain the zero-padded parcel format, and record which system and fields were used. If the current permit route remains inaccessible or inconclusive, move to a named-record request rather than treating a blank view as a property conclusion.
The address-not-found guide gives additional ways to preserve address variants without guessing a new property identity.
Request the exact missing record
Metro says it does not maintain one list of all permits. Its public-records page also still mentions the older Document Search Portal for permit-related documents and building plans, while the later portal notice says Codes permit reports are no longer available there. Confirm the current copy route with Codes instead of assuming every document moved or disappeared.
For a focused request, provide:
- the property address and map-and-parcel number, preserving zeros;
- the RFS case or permit number, if known;
- the approximate complaint, application or work date;
- the exact item sought, such as an issued permit, inspection report, permit-tracking copy or identified building plan; and
- the unsuccessful route and identifier format already tried.
Use the formal public-record request link on Metro’s information page when seeking a retained public record rather than conducting an ordinary ePermits lookup. Metro lists the Codes Department at 615-862-6500 for department contact. Availability still depends on whether the record exists, its size, confidentiality review and applicable law; the page does not establish a universal historical coverage period.
An RFS miss, an empty legacy form or an inconclusive ePermits attempt does not prove that a complaint or permit never existed. Preserve the identifiers and ask for the exact record that would answer the next question.
Chattanooga splits the same research between a regional dashboard and the City’s permit portal; see how to find Chattanooga permit records when the dashboard shows nothing.
Official Metro Nashville guidance checked October 5, 2026. No property, parcel, complaint, RFS case, permit, application, inspection, plan, account, agency contact, payment, portal query, report download or public-record request was completed.