SUMMARY ORDER
Appellant Akhtar Ai, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, based on its determination that Ai lacked standing to sue various New York City entities for the closure of a building that he leased from a limited liability company. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of standing; where standing is challenged based on the pleadings, we accept the complaint’s material allegations as true and construe the complaint in the complaining party’s favor. Am. Psychiatric Ass’n v. Anthem Health Plans, Inc., 821 F.3d 352, 357 (2d Cir. 2016). When determining standing, a district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings. Amidax Trading Grp. v. S.W.I.F.T. SCRL, 671 F.3d 140, 145 (2d Cir. 2011). The plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that establish standing. Id.
Standing is determined based on the litigant’s position at the time he filed the complaint. See Amnesty Int’l USA v. Clapper, 667 F.3d 163, 176-77 (2d Cir. 2011) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 569 n.4, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). “To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). An individual Jacks standing to sue when the alleged injury is based on an injury to a corporate entity. See Bingham v. Zolt, 66 F.3d 553, 561-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (observing that when the claim was that corporate property had been improperly taken, it was the corporation—having an independent legal identity—that had standing to sue).
Here, the district court correctly determined that Ai lacked standing. Mohammedi Property Management, LLC (“Mohammedi Property”) owned the building, and Ai could not sue based on injuries stemming from the City’s issuance of allegedly improper municipal code violation notices to Mohammedi Property. See id. Contrary to Ai’s assertion, an LLC and its owner or members are not interchangeable for the purposes of standing. See id. Additionally, because the question of standing turns on Ai’s position at the time he filed the complaint, the lease agreement that was executed after Ai filed his complaint could not confer standing on him. See Amnesty Int’l USA, 667 F.3d at 177.
*28 We have considered Ali’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.