Suspect removes furniture and other items from a house that has been condemned. The owner of the house is no longer living in the house but has not removed the items from the house yet. Is this still considered a habitation for purposes of Burglary of a Habitation? It obviously was a structure adapted for the overnight accomodations of persons but has now been condemned by the city. Does the condemnation make it lose it's status as a habitation? If so, is all I have just a theft?

I'd expect the defense to claim that since use as a habitation is prohibited, the building could not be a habitation for purposes of the burglary statute. But I think you still have burglary of a building, not just theft, so still a felony.

I agree with Frank, you at least have a burglary of a building. But, I think you can make the case for Burglary of a Habitation.
1. It was once a habitation.
2. Is it apparent to everyone, signs posted, other notices, that identify the building as being condemned.
3. There was furniture in the building.
4. Defendant would not know that this building had been condemned, therefore, he had mens rea for Burglary of a Habitation.

Of course if he pled to Burglary of a Building, I would consider getting that conviction.