Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1 (2026)

Appeals from ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.

✓ 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

§ 5571.1. Appeals from ordinances, resolutions, maps, etc.

(a) Applicability; court of common pleas.--

(1) This section shall apply to any appeal raising questions relating to an alleged defect in the process of or procedure for enactment or adoption of any ordinance, resolution, map or similar action of a political subdivision.

(2) An appeal pursuant to this section shall be to the court of common pleas.

(b) Appeals of defects in statutory procedure.--

(1) Any appeal raising questions relating to an alleged defect in statutory procedure shall be brought within 30 days of the intended effective date of the ordinance.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (c), it is the express intent of the General Assembly that this 30-day limitation shall apply regardless of the ultimate validity of the challenged ordinance.

(c) Exemption from limitation.--An appeal shall be exempt from the time limitation in subsection (b) if the party bringing the appeal establishes that, because of the particular nature of the alleged defect in statutory procedure, the application of the time limitation under subsection (b) would result in an impermissible deprivation of constitutional rights.

(d) Presumptions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, appeals pursuant to this section shall be subject to and in accordance with the following:

(1) An ordinance shall be presumed to be valid and to have been enacted or adopted in strict compliance with statutory procedure.

(2) In all cases in which an appeal filed in court more than two years after the intended effective date of the ordinance is allowed to proceed in accordance with subsection (c), the political subdivision involved and residents and landowners within the political subdivision shall be presumed to have substantially relied upon the validity and effectiveness of the ordinance.

(3) An ordinance shall not be found void from inception unless the party alleging the defect in statutory procedure meets the burden of proving the elements set forth in subsection (e).

(e) Burden of proof.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an ordinance shall not be found void from inception except as follows:

(1) In the case of an appeal brought within the 30-day time limitation of subsection (b), the party alleging the defect must meet the burden of proving that there was a failure to strictly comply with statutory procedure.

(2) In the case of an appeal which is exempt from the 30-day time limitation in accordance with subsection (c), the party alleging the defect must meet the burden of proving each of the following:

(i) That there was a failure to strictly comply with statutory procedure.

(ii) That there was a failure to substantially comply with statutory procedure which resulted in insufficient notification to the public of impending changes in or the existence of the ordinance, so that the public would be prevented from commenting on those changes and intervening, if necessary, or from having knowledge of the existence of the ordinance.

(iii) That there exist facts sufficient to rebut any presumption that may exist pursuant to subsection (d)(2) that would, unless rebutted, result in a determination that the ordinance is not void from inception.

(f) Void ordinances.--A determination that an ordinance is void from inception shall not affect any previously acquired rights of property owners who have exercised good faith reliance on the validity of the ordinance prior to the determination.

(g) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Intended effective date." Notwithstanding the validity of the challenged ordinance, the effective date specified in the challenged ordinance or, if no effective date is specified, the date 60 days after the date the ordinance would have been finally adopted but for the alleged defect in the process of enactment or adoption.

"Ordinance." An ordinance, resolution, map or similar action of a political subdivision.

"Statutory procedure." The preenactment and postenactment procedures prescribed by statute or ordinance in adopting an ordinance.

(July 4, 2008, P.L.325, No.40, eff. imd.)

2008 Amendment. Act 40 added section 5571.1.

Cross References. Section 5571.1 is referred to in section 5571 of this title; section 7705 of Title 73 (Townships).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 46 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Messina v. East Penn Twp., 995 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 995 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). · cites it 12× “The trial court noted the amendment continues the intent of the void ab initio doctrine to some extent by allowing procedural challenges to an ordinance after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period to avoid “an impermissible deprivation of constitutional rights.”

Streck v. Lower Macungie Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 58 A.3d 865 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). · cites it 12× “Section 1002-A(b) states as follows: Challenges to the validity of a land use ordinance raising procedural questions or alleged defects in the process of enactment or adoption shall be raised by appeal taken directly to the court of common pleas of the judicial district in which…”

Ness v. York Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 81 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 16× “(e) Any appeal or action filed within the 30-day period referred to in subsection (d) shall be taken to the court of common pleas and shall be conducted in accordance with and subject to the procedures set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1 (relating to appeals from ordinances,…”

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 62 A.3d 363 (Pa. 2012). · cites it 6× “Appellants petitioned for allowance of appeal, which we granted, limited to whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1 precludes a procedural challenge made more than two years after the effective date of the ordinance, and whether the failure to re-advertise after changes were made to the…”

McLaughlin v. Forty Fort Borough, 64 F. Supp. 3d 631 (M.D. Penn. 2014). · cites it 6× “The logic behind the doctrine is that the time limits provided for in 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5571.1 and 53 Pa. Stat.”

Hawk v. Eldred Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 983 A.2d 216 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1, 2 de- *219 dared unconstitutional because it restricts him from contesting the adoption of the Ordinance.”

Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1 (effective July 4, 2008).”

S. Davis-Haas v. Exeter Twp. ZHB & MetroDev V, LP & Exeter Twp., 166 A.3d 527 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1, contains the procedures governing procedural validity challenges and provides that such challenges are to be initiated in common pleas courts.”

M. Kuziak v. Borough of Danville & Borough of Danville Rental Reg. & Prop. Maint. Hearing Bd., 125 A.3d 470 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “1(b)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1(b)(1). 6 Section 713 of the Sunshine Act states that: A legal challenge under this chapter shall be filed within 30 days from the date of a meeting which is open, or within 30 days from the discovery of any *477 action that…”

White Deer Twp. v. Napp, 985 A.2d 745 (Pa. 2009). · cites it 2× “40, § 1, and recodified its subject matter at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1. [12] As a result of its disposition, the Commonwealth Court did not reach the issues of whether post-retirement medical insurance benefits are a form of deferred compensation or whether auditor approval of such…”

Oxford Corp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 34 A.3d 286 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “§ 11002-A, was amended and now provides, in pertinent part: (b) Challenges to the validity of a land use ordinance raising procedural questions or alleged defects in the process of enactment or adoption shall be raised by appeal taken directly to the court of common pleas of the…”

Shaw v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair Zoning Hearing Bd., 71 A.3d 1103 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1. Here, the trial court determined that the joint action filed by Shaw and Cain-Man-nix was untimely under Section 5571.”

Show all 46 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(a) — 9 cases

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 995 A.2d 517 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). “The trial court noted the amendment continues the intent of the void ab initio doctrine to some extent by allowing procedural challenges to an ordinance after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period to avoid “an impermissible deprivation of constitutional rights.”

Streck v. Lower Macungie Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 58 A.3d 865 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). “Section 1002-A(b) states as follows: Challenges to the validity of a land use ordinance raising procedural questions or alleged defects in the process of enactment or adoption shall be raised by appeal taken directly to the court of common pleas of the judicial district in which…”

Gibraltar Rock, Inc. v. New Hanover Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 68 A.3d 1012 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

Ness v. York Twp. Bd. of Commissioners, 81 A.3d 1073 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “(e) Any appeal or action filed within the 30-day period referred to in subsection (d) shall be taken to the court of common pleas and shall be conducted in accordance with and subject to the procedures set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1 (relating to appeals from ordinances,…”

W.J. Carr v. Horsham Twp. v. Horsham-Blair, L.P. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(a)(1) — 2 cases

Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1 (effective July 4, 2008).”

Nw. Wissahickon Conservancy, Inc. v. Philadelphia City Plan. Comm'n, 64 A.3d 1135 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(a)(2) — 2 cases

Hawk v. Eldred Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 983 A.2d 216 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1, 2 de- *219 dared unconstitutional because it restricts him from contesting the adoption of the Ordinance.”

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(b) — 7 cases

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 62 A.3d 363 (Pa. 2012). “Appellants petitioned for allowance of appeal, which we granted, limited to whether 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1 precludes a procedural challenge made more than two years after the effective date of the ordinance, and whether the failure to re-advertise after changes were made to the…”

S. Davis-Haas v. Exeter Twp. ZHB & MetroDev V, LP & Exeter Twp., 166 A.3d 527 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1, contains the procedures governing procedural validity challenges and provides that such challenges are to be initiated in common pleas courts.”

Shaw v. Twp. of Upper St. Clair Zoning Hearing Bd., 71 A.3d 1103 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). “42 Pa.C.S. § 5571.1. Here, the trial court determined that the joint action filed by Shaw and Cain-Man-nix was untimely under Section 5571.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(b)(1) — 5 cases

M. Kuziak v. Borough of Danville & Borough of Danville Rental Reg. & Prop. Maint. Hearing Bd., 125 A.3d 470 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “1(b)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1(b)(1). 6 Section 713 of the Sunshine Act states that: A legal challenge under this chapter shall be filed within 30 days from the date of a meeting which is open, or within 30 days from the discovery of any *477 action that…”

B.A. D'Amour v. Lower Merion Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

J. Keefe, CHIBS, Inc. d/b/a Carnivores Sports Bar v. Borough of Oakmont ZHB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(b)(2) — 2 cases

J. Keefe, CHIBS, Inc. d/b/a Carnivores Sports Bar v. Borough of Oakmont ZHB (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(c) — 7 cases

Realty Enter., LLC & S. Sudhop v. Marple Twp., 213 A.3d 333 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

E.R. Thompson & L. Del Gotto v. Bd. of Supervisors of Warrington Twp (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(d) — 4 cases

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

Clean Air Generation, LLC Anthracite Ridge, LLC v. Schuylkill Cnty. Bd. of Comm., Schuylkill Cnty. Airport Auth. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2022).

L. Bell v. The Bd. of Supers. of Perry Twp., Berks Cnty., PA (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(d)(1) — 6 cases

Delaware Twp. Bd. of Auditors v. Delaware Twp., 132 A.3d 523 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016).

Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 67 A.3d 156 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

K. Smith v. Bd. of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(d)(2) — 5 cases

Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1 (effective July 4, 2008).”

Realty Enter., LLC & S. Sudhop v. Marple Twp., 213 A.3d 333 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 55 (2009).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(d)(3) — 2 cases

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021).

L. Bell v. The Bd. of Supers. of Perry Twp., Berks Cnty., PA (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2025).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e) — 6 cases

McLaughlin v. Forty Fort Borough, 64 F. Supp. 3d 631 (M.D. Penn. 2014). “The logic behind the doctrine is that the time limits provided for in 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 5571.1 and 53 Pa. Stat.”

C.N. Diefenderfer & B.A. Diefenderfer, his wife v. Palmer Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 127 A.3d 881 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e)(1) — 7 cases

Lamar Advantage GP Co. v. City of Pittsburgh, 67 A.3d 156 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

Realty Enter., LLC & S. Sudhop v. Marple Twp., 213 A.3d 333 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e)(2) — 7 cases

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

J. Buchanan Assocs., LLC v. Univ. Area Jt. Auth. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e)(2)(h) — 1 case

Messina v. East Penn Twp., 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 55 (2009).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e)(2)(i) — 3 cases

Geryville Materials, Inc. v. Lower Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 972 A.2d 136 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009). “1 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 5571.1 (effective July 4, 2008).”

Realty Enter., LLC & S. Sudhop v. Marple Twp., 213 A.3d 333 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(e)(2)(ii) — 3 cases

K. Smith v. Bd. of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(f) — 1 case

J. Yannaccone v. Lewis Twp. Bd. of Supers. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5571.1(g) — 1 case

K. Smith v. Bd. of Supervisors of West Pennsboro Twp. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018).

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.