Land & Renewables Connection
Drawing the Line Somewhere
What Happens When a Parcel is Split Zoned?
Municipal zoning maps frequently include the entirety of a lot or a tax parcel within a given zoning district. But, sometimes zoning maps do not do this. Sometimes, zoning maps split a parcel between different zoning districts. Can the property owner decide to develop the whole parcel as if it were zoned in the more preferable manner?
When a zoning map divides a tax lot or parcel into two different zoning districts, the property is “split-zoned”. See, LHT Associates, LLC v. Township of Hampton, 809 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002). A zoning ordinance may contain details about how development may occur on a split-zoned lot. An example of this is the recent, unreported Commonwealth Court decision in G. Morris Solar LLC v. Borough Council of Borough of Gratz, No. 1380 CD 2023 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Mar. 14, 2025). There, a multi-parcel solar development was planned, but one of the constituent lots was split-zoned between “C-1” where solar energy facilities were authorized, and “R-1”, where they were not authorized. Id. at *1. The Commonwealth Court noted that for split-zoned parcels, “. . . if at least 80% of the land area of a parcel is located within a particular zoning district, Section 305 of the Ordinance construes the entire parcel as being located in that district for zoning purposes.” Id. at *1.
Absent direction from a zoning ordinance about how development is handled on a split-zoned lot, the owner cannot choose to develop the entire property by extending one zoning designation to the whole lot. For example, in 813 Associates v. Zoning Hearing Board of Springfield Township, 479 A.2d 677 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984), the Commonwealth Court affirmed a zoning hearing board’s denial of a variance on a split-zoned lot. The front of the parcel was zoned “Business-1” and a medical office building was located there. Id. at 678. The back part of the parcel was zoned “AA residential”. Id. The owner sought a variance to extend the commercial use into 50 feet of the rear of the lot, which was zoned “AA residential”. Id. The zoning board denied the variance, the Court of Common Pleas affirmed, as did the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court reasoned that the property owner failed to establish that the lot as a whole was unusable for the purpose that it was zoned for. Id. at 680. The appellate court observed that “. . . the appellant’s problem seems to arise because of the highly successful use that the appellate has made of the front part of the property.” Id.
In LHT Associates, LLC v. Township of Hampton, 809 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2002), a developer planned a commercial development on a lot that was split zoned between residential and commercial zoning districts. Id. at 1074. The developer argued that because, in its view, the township zoning ordinance did not provide for split-zoned lots, the developer could choose to use either zoning district that encompassed the property. Id. at 1078. The Commonwealth Court disagreed, citing to authority identifying the need for a variance on one part of the split-zoned lot or another. The Commonwealth Court observed that:
[u]nder LHT's theory, a large parcel of split-zoned land, in which the commercial area is de minimis and the residential area substantial, could be forced to support a commercial use. Clearly, such a radical departure from municipal planning concerns and zoning requirements would require a variance or re-zoning, and must be presented in the appropriate forum with the appropriate procedure.
Id. at 1077. The LHT Associates, LLC court upheld the decision below, which had denied the developer’s requested relief.
The theories underlying 813 Associates and LHT Associates were re-stated fairly recently in Bloomsburg Industrial Ventures, LLC v. Town of Bloomsburg, 242 A.3d 969 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020). There, the Commonwealth Court noted that the parcel in question was split between the “IP” zoning district and the “BC” zoning district, with a building proposed for the lot to straddle those zoning districts. Id. at 984. The Commonwealth stated that “. . . in cases involving split-zoned property, the landowner applicant must seek the necessary variance to apply one zoning district’s regulations to the entire property.” Id.
Split-zoned property is the exception rather than the rule. Zoning maps do not frequently split single lots between zoning districts. But, split-zoning does occur and different parts of a property can be located in different zoning districts. The first step when evaluating potential development is to check the zoning ordinance, to see if it provides guidance for development. If the zoning ordinance does not address which zoning criteria apply to a split-zoned property, then the law appears to require a property owner to obtain relief to change the zoning, or obtain a variance, for the part of the property that is zoned differently than the intended use.
If you have questions about this post, split-zoning, or any other zoning issue, visit our Renewable Energy, Zoning, and Land Use Practice Page or contact Brendan A. O’Donnell at 412-288-2226 or odonnellba@hh-law.com.
About Us
These are cutting edge legal issues. The law of the future. Renewable energy, zoning and land use issues will shape the future of growth in the region. Houston Harbaugh’s Renewable Energy, Zoning and Land Use practice focuses on assisting clients maximize and protect the value of their properties, whether related to renewable energy, commercial or residential development opportunities.
As renewable energy becomes more reliable, efficient, inexpensive and technologies associated with carbon capture and storage advance, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio are in position to benefit from these two parallel energy development opportunities. The region’s geographic location and existing infrastructure presents unique opportunities for property owners to participate in solar, wind, geothermal, other renewable energy developments, as well as for carbon capture, carbon sequestration and carbon storage projects. Additionally, legacy oil, gas and coal infrastructure may be repurposed and reused in connection with new energy developments.
With any development, whether renewable energy, commercial or residential, there are a host of zoning and land use issues that directly impact the most basic parts of daily life of both individuals and communities. Determining where and how land can be developed impacts property ownership, property value, quality of life and the economic development and wellbeing of communities. Zoning and land use issues are, on one hand, matters of local concern but, on the other hand, potentially subject to county or state regulations.
The Renewable Energy, Zoning and Land Use practice draws on Houston Harbaugh attorneys’ experience in energy, oil and gas and real property matters to advance clients’ interests in both transactional and litigation matters. Houston Harbaugh’s Renewable Energy, Zoning and Land Use attorneys assist clients with matters including:
- Solar energy leases;
- Wind energy leases;
- Pore space ownership for carbon capture / carbon sequestration / carbon storage, geothermal and waste disposal;
- Ownership of legacy oil, gas and coal infrastructure for repurposing/renewable energy usage;
- Compliance with existing solar, wind and renewable energy leases;
- Surface and subsurface accommodation between competing land uses;
- Variance, Special Exception and Conditional Uses applications/hearings;
- Land use appeals;
- Eminent domain
Brendan A. O'Donnell
An attorney in Houston Harbaugh’s Oil and Gas Practice, Brendan O’Donnell has represented oil and gas owners across Pennsylvania in a wide array of oil and gas matters for over a decade. This experience has involved not only the Marcellus shale and the Utica shale, but more traditional oil and gas development as well.
Brendan maintains a diverse practice, representing clients in all matters involving oil and gas spanning the transactional and litigation realms. On the transactional front, Brendan routinely assists landowners with negotiating oil and gas leases, pipeline rights of way and surface use agreements and subsurface easements related to horizontal drilling as part of Marcellus and Utica shale development. Brendan also frequently reviews royalty statements and oil and gas ownership issues as well as preparing deeds and title curative documents. Brendan also maintains an active litigation practice, representing clients in state and federal courts, as well as private arbitration matters. This litigation often involves title disputes, pooling and unitization challenges, lease termination questions and royalty/ post-production cost claims.
Assisting clients across the spectrum from contract negotiations through litigation and appeals gives Brendan valuable first-hand knowledge about how oil and gas agreements are prepared, how disputes arise and how courts resolve these issues. Brendan stays up-to-date on developments in oil and gas law and writes frequently on the these topics. Additionally, as alternative energy generation like wind and solar are increasingly being developed in oil and gas producing regions, Brendan assists clients with navigating the interplay between these complex energy developments and evaluating solar agreements.
Brendan complements his oil and gas practice by representing property owners, including oil and gas owners, in zoning and land use matters. Brendan has represented clients before municipal bodies and in appeals to court. Brendan is also active in the firm’s Energy and Environmental Law Practice.
Regardless of the type of representation, Brendan prides himself in providing clients with realistic, pragmatic advice. Hiring an attorney is an investment and Brendan focuses on how he can provide value to clients.
Outside of the office, Brendan serves on the Town of McCandless Planning Commission and lives with his family in McCandless. Brendan has visited every one of Allegheny County’s 130 municipalities.
