Challenging a Zoning Decision or Ordinance in Pennsylvania

Two different things

Choosing the wrong route wastes the clock, and the clocks here are unforgiving.

Exclusionary zoning

Pennsylvania has a substantial body of law on ordinances that exclude legitimate uses entirely from a municipality, or that permit them only in theory while making them impossible in practice. A municipality is generally expected to provide for its fair share of the range of uses.

Where an ordinance excludes a use altogether, a challenger who succeeds may be entitled to site specific relief rather than merely a declaration that the ordinance is invalid. That is a meaningful remedy and it is the reason these challenges are worth bringing rather than simply moving on.

Curative amendments

A landowner who believes an ordinance is substantively invalid can submit a challenge together with a proposed curative amendment, effectively saying here is the defect and here is how it should be fixed for my property. It is a procedural route with its own requirements and timetable, and it is submitted to the governing body rather than the zoning hearing board.

Municipalities can also cure defects themselves, which affects the timing and sometimes the outcome of a pending challenge.

Procedural challenges are short lived

Challenges to how an ordinance was enacted, defective notice, procedural irregularities, must generally be brought within a limited period after enactment. After that window the ordinance is effectively insulated from procedural attack however defective the process was.

Standing

Whether you are the applicant, an objector or a neighbor, you have to establish standing, and for objectors that generally means showing you are substantially affected rather than merely nearby or generally concerned. It is a threshold question that is frequently decisive and is often addressed too late.