49 C.F.R. § 24.304

Reestablishment expenses—nonresidential moves

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

In addition to the payments available under §§ 24.301 and 24.303, a small business, farm, or nonprofit organization is entitled to receive a payment, not to exceed $33,200, for expenses actually incurred in relocating and reestablishing such small business, farm, or nonprofit organization at a replacement site.

(a) Eligible expenses. Reestablishment expenses must be reasonable and necessary, as determined by the agency. They include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Repairs or improvements to the replacement real property as required by Federal, State, or local law, code, or ordinance.

(2) Modifications to the replacement property to accommodate the business operation or make replacement structures suitable for conducting the business.

(3) Construction and installation costs for exterior signing to advertise the business.

(4) Redecoration or replacement of soiled or worn surfaces at the replacement site, such as paint, paneling, or carpeting.

(5) Advertisement of replacement location.

(6) Estimated increased costs of operation during the first 2 years at the replacement site for such items as:

(i) Lease or rental charges;

(ii) Personal or real property taxes;

(iii) Insurance premiums; and

(iv) Utility charges, excluding impact fees.

(7) Other items that the agency considers essential to the reestablishment of the business.

(b) Ineligible expenses. The following is a nonexclusive listing of reestablishment expenditures not considered to be reasonable, necessary, or otherwise eligible:

(1) Purchase of capital assets, such as office furniture, filing cabinets, machinery, or trade fixtures.

(2) Purchase of manufacturing materials, production supplies, product inventory, or other items used in the normal course of the business operation.

(3) Interest on money borrowed to make the move or purchase the replacement property.

(4) Payment to a part-time business in the home which does not contribute materially, defined at § 24.2(a), to the household income.

(5) Construction costs for a new building at the business replacement site, or costs to construct, reconstruct or rehabilitate an existing building. (See appendix A to this part, section 24.304(b)(5).)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: The Kroger Co. v. Reg'l Airport Auth. of Louisville & Jefferson Cnty., 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The Kroger Co. v. Reg'l Airport Auth. of Louisville & Jefferson Cnty., 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002). “Consistent with this interpretation, Kroger’s permits might be reimbursable under 49 C.F.R. § 24.304 (a)(6), which provides for reestablishment expenses.”

In Re Relocation Benefits of Wilkins Pontiac, Inc., 530 N.W.2d 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 3× “See 49 C.F.R. § 24.304 (b)(1) (1991) (the purchase of capital assets is not reimbursable as a relocation expense).”

The M/V Cape Ann v. United States, 199 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Of the $3900 in moving expenses, $2000 in search related expenses were subject to a $1000 regulatory cap reducing the total moving expenses to $2900. See Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, 49 C.”

Steve A. Baldwin, as Rep. of the Joan A. Baldwin Fam. Trust, Agreement; The Steve A. Baldwin Fam. Trust; The Alton Baldwin Fam., Trust Agreement; & Baldwin Enter. v. Arkansas Dep't Of, Transp., 2025 Ark. App. 114 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 11× “301 (h)(l0) and 49 C.F.R. § 24.304 (b)(1) and that this claim was properly considered and denied by the Department.”

The M v. (1st Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Of the $3900 in moving expenses, $2000 in search related expenses were subject to a $1000 regulatory cap reducing the total moving expenses to $2900. See Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs, 49 C.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.