Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 706 (2026)

Effect of condemnation use on after value.

✓ 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

§ 706. Effect of condemnation use on after value.

(a) General rule.--In determining the fair market value of the remaining property after a partial taking, consideration shall be given to the use to which the property condemned is to be put and the damages or benefits specially affecting the remaining property due to its proximity to the improvement for which the property was taken.

(b) Future damages and general benefits.--Future damages and general benefits which will affect the entire community beyond the properties directly abutting the property taken shall not be considered in arriving at the after value.

(c) Special benefits.--Special benefits to the remaining property shall in no event exceed the total damages, except in cases where the condemnor is authorized under existing law to make special assessments for benefits.

(d) Partial taking.--A partial taking shall not extinguish a nonconforming use unless all or a substantial portion of the improvements on the property are within the area of the property taken.

Cross References. Section 706 is referred to in section 521 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2021 · leading case: Thomas A. McElwee & Son, Inc. v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 948 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thomas A. McElwee & Son, Inc. v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 948 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2008). “§ 1-606 (repealed and recodified as amended at 26 Pa.C.S. § 706), operated to overturn the common law rule that damages resulting from a temporary interference with rights of access are noncompensable.”

R. Miller & M.L. Miller v. The Borough of Indian Lake (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “The model jury “instruction is derived from [S]ection 706 of the Eminent Domain Code[, 26 Pa. C.S. §706] . . . .” Pa. SSJI (Civ), §22.”

2800 N. Broad St., LLC v. Com. of PA, DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). “” 26 Pa.C.S. § 706(a). See Middletown Twp., Del.”

— 26 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 706(a) — 2 cases

R. Miller & M.L. Miller v. The Borough of Indian Lake (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). “The model jury “instruction is derived from [S]ection 706 of the Eminent Domain Code[, 26 Pa. C.S. §706] . . . .” Pa. SSJI (Civ), §22.”

2800 N. Broad St., LLC v. Com. of PA, DOT (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021). “” 26 Pa.C.S. § 706(a). See Middletown Twp., Del.”

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.