Pa. Cons. Stat. » 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. (MUNICIPALITIES) / Chapter 88
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8817 (2026)

 Changes in assessed valuation.

✓ 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

§ 8817.  Changes in assessed valuation.

(a)  General rule.--In addition to other authorization provided in this chapter, the assessors may change the assessed valuation on real property when a parcel of land is subdivided into smaller parcels or when improvements are made to real property or existing improvements are removed from real property or are destroyed. The recording of a subdivision plan shall not constitute grounds for assessment increases until lots are sold or improvements are installed. The painting of a building or the normal regular repairs to a building shall not be deemed cause for a change in valuation by the assessors under the authority of this section.

(b)  Construction.--A change in the assessed valuation on real property authorized by this section shall not be construed as a spot reassessment under section 8843 (relating to spot reassessment).

(July 7, 2022, P.L.455, No.41, eff. 60 days)

 

2022 Amendment.  Act 41 amended subsec. (a).

Cross References.  Section 8817 is referred to in section 8841 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case: C. Fasnacht & C. Fasnacht v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment Appeals of Schuylkill Cnty. v. Schuylkill Cnty., S. Manheim Twp. & Schuylkill Haven Area SD, 156 A.3d 365 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
C. Fasnacht & C. Fasnacht v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment Appeals of Schuylkill Cnty. v. Schuylkill Cnty., S. Manheim Twp. & Schuylkill Haven Area SD, 156 A.3d 365 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). · cites it 6× “On appeal to this Court,5 Taxpayers argue that the Property’s reassessment due to improvements made before they purchased the Property constitutes impermissible spot reassessment.”
J.B. Blanda & S.R. Blanda v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Somerset Cnty., Jefferson Twp., & Somerset Area SD, 131 A.3d 560 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). · cites it 3× “53 Pa. C.S. §8817. 5 exists, a taxing authority’s reassessment of property constitutes an impermissible spot reassessment.”
Duke Energy Fayette II, LLC v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 116 A.3d 1176 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817. The Property was taxable at the time of the improvements and, thus, should have been assessed at that time.”
In Re: Appeal of Springfield Hosp. ~ Appeal of: Prospect Crozer, LLC, 179 A.3d 632 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “" 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817(a). Mid-year modifications are also authorized under CCAL Sections 8813 (for residential construction), 8814 (for real estate subject to sewer connection ban orders), 8815 (for catastrophic loss), and 8816 (for clerical and mathematical errors).”
M. Manor Holding, LP & Mountain Manor Dev. Co., LP v. Monroe Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau & the Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “In support of its request for relief to this Court, Manor contends that the trial court erred because it did not properly interpret Sections 8817 and 8841 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law (CCAL), 53 Pa. C.S. §§ 8817 and 8841, which Manor claims imposes a duty on the…”
Raup v. Dauphin Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 108 A.3d 953 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3× “Raup argued that the dollar-deed to himself was not a “sale” of real estate that triggered an assessment under section 8817 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law (Assessment Law), 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817, or section 513(b) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53…”
S.L. Allen & L.L. Allen, h&w v. Juniata Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals v. Juniata Cnty. & Juniata Cnty. SD (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “” 53 Pa. C.S. §8817. The Assessment Law does not define “improvements.”
Appeal of C. Landis & L.R. Garnas Owner, From the Decisions of the Bd. of Assessment Appeals of Delaware Cnty. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “53 Pa. C.S. §8817. “[B]ecause of the discrepancy between present-year dollars and base- year dollars, when [the Board] alters the value associated with a particular piece of property .”
Appeal of C. Landis & L.R. Garnas Owner, From the Decisions of the Bd. of Assessment Appeals of Delaware Cnty. (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019). “53 Pa. C.S. §8817. “[B]ecause of the discrepancy between present-year dollars and base- year dollars, when [the Board] alters the value associated with a particular piece of property .”
GM Berkshire Hills, Aplts. v. Berks Co. Bd. (Pa. 2023). “See 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817(a); see also id. § 8843 (prohibiting the county assessment office from engaging in spot reassessment).”
— 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8817(a) — 4 cases
C. Fasnacht & C. Fasnacht v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment Appeals of Schuylkill Cnty. v. Schuylkill Cnty., S. Manheim Twp. & Schuylkill Haven Area SD, 156 A.3d 365 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “On appeal to this Court,5 Taxpayers argue that the Property’s reassessment due to improvements made before they purchased the Property constitutes impermissible spot reassessment.”
In Re: Appeal of Springfield Hosp. ~ Appeal of: Prospect Crozer, LLC, 179 A.3d 632 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “" 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817(a). Mid-year modifications are also authorized under CCAL Sections 8813 (for residential construction), 8814 (for real estate subject to sewer connection ban orders), 8815 (for catastrophic loss), and 8816 (for clerical and mathematical errors).”
Raup v. Dauphin Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 108 A.3d 953 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015). “Raup argued that the dollar-deed to himself was not a “sale” of real estate that triggered an assessment under section 8817 of the Consolidated County Assessment Law (Assessment Law), 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817, or section 513(b) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC), 53…”
GM Berkshire Hills, Aplts. v. Berks Co. Bd. (Pa. 2023). “See 53 Pa.C.S. § 8817(a); see also id. § 8843 (prohibiting the county assessment office from engaging in spot reassessment).”
— 53 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8817(b) — 1 case
C. Fasnacht & C. Fasnacht v. Bd. of Prop. Assessment Appeals of Schuylkill Cnty. v. Schuylkill Cnty., S. Manheim Twp. & Schuylkill Haven Area SD, 156 A.3d 365 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). “On appeal to this Court,5 Taxpayers argue that the Property’s reassessment due to improvements made before they purchased the Property constitutes impermissible spot reassessment.”
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.