Land & Renewables Connection

The Power of the Municipal Curative Amendment Under the MPC

Pennsylvania has thousands of municipalities, many of which have zoning ordinances that were written before solar farms, wind farms, battery energy storage systems, and data centers existed as meaningful land uses. When a developer or landowner proposes one of these uses in a municipality whose ordinance does not address it, the result is uncertainty on many fronts. Is the use allowed? Can it be located on a particular property? What standards apply to the use? This uncertainty creates tension and negatively impacts the value of property by eliminating the predictability of what types of developments are authorized and the process that those developments follow to move forward.

What is a Municipal Curative Amendment in Pennsylvania?

Under Section 609.2 of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), a municipal curative amendment allows a local government to self-declare its zoning ordinance substantively invalid to fix regulatory gaps—such as missing provisions for modern data centers or solar farms—while shielding itself from competing landowner challenges for 180 days.

What Happened Recently?

In late March 2026, Montgomery Township, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, did something that directly addresses this problem, something that other municipalities across Pennsylvania could take note of. The township’s Board of Supervisors voted to declare a portion of its zoning ordinance invalid because it did not address data centers. This course of action was not the result of a lawsuit, nor was it prompted by a court order or other litigation requirement. Instead, the municipality identified what it believed to be a substantive flaw in its zoning ordinance and began to address it under a specific legal mechanism in the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (the "MPC").

This statutory mechanism, the municipal curative amendment, is a practical and powerful way for municipalities to address potential issues in their own zoning ordinances. It is also useful for landowners and developers because it can promote certainty and operates on a specific timeline. The municipal curative amendment process in Section 609.2 of the MPC, 53 P.S. §10609.2, can provide clarity about authorized land uses without court battles and the associated legal costs.

The MPC and the Curative Amendment Process

The MPC is the legal baseline for municipal zoning activities everywhere in Pennsylvania other than Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. 53 P.S. § 10103. Municipalities that enact zoning ordinances must provide for all legitimate land uses somewhere within their borders. See, Bloomsburg Indus. Ventures, LLC v. Town of Bloomsburg, 242 A.3d 969, 983 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). Likewise, a municipality cannot impose conditions on a land use that are so burdensome that the use becomes practically impossible to develop. See, In re Charlestown Outdoor, LLC, 280 A.3d 948, 955 (Pa. 2022). If a zoning ordinance does not satisfy these requirements, it may be declared to be "substantively invalid."

There are a few ways that the MPC addresses substantive validity issues involving zoning ordinances. If a property owner believes that a zoning ordinance is substantively invalid, that property owner can file a substantive validity challenge before the municipality's zoning hearing board. 53 P.S. § 10909.1. A property owner can also submit a curative amendment to the governing body of a municipality or the zoning hearing board. 53 P.S. § 10609.1. If the party challenging the substantive validity of the ordinance prevails, the zoning ordinance is struck down as to that use. 53 P.S. § 10916.1. If that occurs, the challenger could potentially develop the land use that was improperly excluded by the challenged zoning ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10916.1(c). That outcome can mean the use is developed outside of the zoning ordinance, limiting the municipality's ability to manage the development. 53 P.S. § 10916.1(c). We will address landowner curative amendments elsewhere.       

While these processes and outcomes might not be beneficial to a municipality, there is another mechanism under the MPC that does not get as much attention, but allows municipalities to review and update zoning ordinances while being shielded from challenge for a period of time. This process is contained in Section 609.2 of the MPC, and it is useful and powerful precisely because it allows a municipality to address zoning issues in an organized manner, without the costs and risks of potential litigation — for both the municipality and the developer or landowner on the other side of a potential dispute.

Under Section 609.2, if a municipality determines that its zoning ordinance is substantively invalid, it must take formal action to declare that its zoning ordinance as a whole, or parts of it, are substantively invalid. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(1). In its formal declaration, the municipality must identify the specific deficiency and propose that it will prepare an amendment to address it. Id. Within 30 days of that declaration, the municipality must pass a resolution making specific findings about the invalidity — identifying uses that are not permitted or not permitted in sufficient quantity, a class of uses requiring revision, or the entire ordinance as requiring revisions — and must begin preparing a curative amendment. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(1)(i). The municipality then has 180 days from the date of its declaration to enact a curative amendment or reaffirm the validity of its ordinance. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(2).

The practical shield this creates for the municipality is significant. Once the process is properly initiated, the municipality's governing body cannot be forced to consider a landowner's curative amendment on grounds identical to or substantially similar to those identified in the resolution, and the zoning hearing board cannot be required to provide a report on the same grounds during that 180 day period. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(3). Upon completion, no rights to a landowner cure accrue based on the declared invalidity. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(3).

The process is not without limits — a municipality cannot invoke it after a substantive validity challenge has already been filed, Galbreath v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Northampton Township, 423 A.2d 45(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1980), and cannot use it to address the same deficiency again for 36 months following enactment of the curative amendment or reaffirmation, unless a substantially new duty or obligation has been imposed by statute or appellate court decision. 53 P.S. § 10609.2(4).

Although the municipal curative amendment procedure gives a municipality time and room to make changes, it is a mechanism that is counterintuitively beneficial for landowners and developers because of the specific and defined time for action under the MPC. The process cannot drag on for years. The municipality gets the opportunity to review and ordinance and to make changes. Landowners and developers get the benefit of knowing where a particular use can be developed, and the conditions necessary for development, in a defined timeline. Likewise, the community as a whole is not in limbo if part of a zoning ordinance is declared to be substantive invalid, thereby opening more areas of the municipality to potential development.

What Montgomery Township Got Right

The municipal curative amendment process in Section 609.2 of the MPC is not the only way that a municipality can update or amend a zoning ordinance to address a particular use. Municipalities can address a zoning issue through an ordinary amendment to the zoning ordinance under Section 609 of the MPC. However, that approach does not provide the same protections as the municipal curative amendment process and can create unnecessary uncertainty for landowners and developers.

The municipal curative amendment process, when used correctly, produces a defined timeline, a structured public process, and a legal framework that gives both municipalities and developers clarity about where a use can go and what is required to develop it. Montgomery Township used that process for data centers. The same process applies equally to solar energy generation facilities, wind farms, battery energy storage systems, and any other legitimate land use that an existing zoning ordinance fails to address.

In an era where increased energy demands, renewable energy sources, and new infrastructure are rapidly expanding, the traditional "wait and see" approach to outdated zoning is no longer viable. When modern land uses like data centers, battery storage, and renewable energy facilities outpace local regulations, a proactive response is essential.

By utilizing the municipal curative amendment process under Section 609.2 of the MPC, Montgomery Township demonstrated that local governments do not have to wait for costly litigation to fix regulatory gaps. Instead, this statutory mechanism allows municipalities to seize control of their zoning ordinances, shield themselves from hostile challenges, and establish clear, predictable ground rules. For developers, landowners, and communities alike, the process replaces conflict and limbo with a structured, time-sensitive path forward—proving that modernizing local zoning can be a collaborative blueprint rather than a legal battlefield.

Houston Harbaugh's Renewable Energy, Zoning and Land Use practice assists property owners, developers, and other clients with zoning and land use matters across Pennsylvania. If you have a question about a zoning ordinance, a proposed development, or a land use issue affecting your property, contact attorney Brendan A. O'Donnell at 412-288-2226 or odonnellba@hh-law.com.

This post is for informational purposes only and is not intended to, nor should it be relied on, to provide legal advice.