Pa. Cons. Stat. » 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. (EMINENT DOMAIN) / Chapter 7
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 705 (2026)

 Contiguous tracts and unity of use.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 705.  Contiguous tracts and unity of use.

Where all or a part of several contiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership is condemned or a part of several noncontiguous tracts in substantially identical ownership which are used together for a unified purpose is condemned, damages shall be assessed as if the tracts were one parcel.

 

Cross References.  Section 705 is referred to in section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Szabo, S. v. PennDOT, Aplt., 202 A.3d 52 (Pa. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Szabo, S. v. PennDOT, Aplt., 202 A.3d 52 (Pa. 2019). · cites it 3× “26 Pa.C.S. § 705. [J-27-2018] - 14 the taking.”
G. Pignetti & J. Pignetti v. DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023). · cites it 7× “2 Although the Pignettis’ Petition did not clearly identify the relief they were seeking, DOT’s Preliminary Objections evidence DOT’s understanding that the Pignettis were seeking to have the Board assess damages for Parcels 44 and 45 together pursuant to Section 705 of the…”
Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT (Pa. 2025). · cites it 5× “5 26 Pa.C.S. § 705 (emphasis added). [J-11A-2024 and J-11B-2024] - 2 a unified purpose,” and it reversed the trial court’s ruling to the contrary.”
Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT (Pa. 2025). · cites it 5× “5 26 Pa.C.S. § 705 (emphasis added). [J-11A-2024 and J-11B-2024] - 2 a unified purpose,” and it reversed the trial court’s ruling to the contrary.”
Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT (Pa. 2025). · cites it 2× “” In my mind, the phrase “used together for a unified purpose” ultimately connotes something more than simply “used in furtherance of a shared enterprise.”
Pignetti, G & J, h/w, Aplts. v. PennDOT (Pa. 2025). · cites it 2× “” In my mind, the phrase “used together for a unified purpose” ultimately connotes something more than simply “used in furtherance of a shared enterprise.”
Szabo, S. v. PennDOT, Aplt. (Pa. 2019). “6 The unity of purpose doctrine now is found in 26 Pa.C.S. § 705. [J-27-2018] [OAJC: Mundy, J.”
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.