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.
See Video Here
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.
