In the US, graffiti artists' rights have only been upheld under VARA if their work was permitted by the property owner. The artists suing the developers who painted over 5 Pointz were successful because their work was created with the consent of the property owners.
However, more recently a property management company in California was not held responsible for painting over murals on their building that were painted without the owner's consent:
"CCI concedes that the statutory provisions of the VARA “do[] not expressly state that the consent of the building owner is necessary.” Id. Instead, CCI argues that “common sense” implies a requirement that a plaintiff must plead consent of a building owner to establish standing and access the protections of the VARA. Id. The Court agrees with CCI, at least with regards to works of art that cannot be removed from a building without causing their destruction."
https://casetext.com/case/canilao-v-city-commercial-invs
EDIT: -Chicago +California
For what I read about VARA, it applies only if you paid the artist to paint the graffiti, and later you decide to destroy it, as the artist keeps some rights even if you own the art.