Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Pennsylvania

Re: Pre-existing Ballfield

You asked if the users of a sports field can be held liable for accidental damage to homes built near the field.

You are correct in that sometimes property owners cannot complain about damages where they "come to the nuisance." This is a valid concept but doesn't apply here. In order for it to apply it must be a condition which is difficult to remedy or which is a preferred or higher use of the land.

In this case use of the land for a ball field has little if any economic benefit that would accord it status as a higher use. Higher use would be use as a business, residential, or agricultural purpose and the reasonable nuisances emenating therefrom MIGHT need to be tolerated. The common examples are the smells from an operating farm or overflights from a nearby landing strip.

Nor is there a preferred use here. A house of worship would be a preffered use. (Not in the common understanding but in that it would be accorded preferral because of its religious status, since it would not generate tax revenue it would not be a higher use.) If the church had bells or religious recordings that went off regulalry then that would be a nuisance that the prperty owner "came to."

So having no place to hide from liability the property owner isn't coming to a nuisance. The property owner is merely promoting a higher use of their property and must be accorded the rights of a property owner. If the property is damaged in any way from the existing use of the neighboring property, such as a shanked ball, then the errant user will be liable.

And you are incorrect about the golf course analogy. In most jurisdictions a home built near a golf course is able to hold the course responsible for damage. In many instances though the property is developed concurrently and the deed will deal with the damage issue.

Regardsm

Roger Traversa

email: [email protected]