When “No Trespassing” isn’t required: Pennsylvania court revives tax exemption for a conservation land trust

Can vacant woodland with almost no visitors still qualify as a “purely public charity” exempt from Pennsylvania real estate tax?

In a June 2026 decision involving a Pennsylvania land trust, the Commonwealth Court found that it can. The decision provides important guidance for conservation and historic-preservation organizations seeking real estate tax exemptions, particularly when their properties are open to the public but receive little foot traffic and have few signs or other amenities.

The decision also reinforces an important point for organizations seeking an exemption: Public benefit does not necessarily depend on how many people physically use a property.

Key takeaways:

• Conservation and historic preservation can qualify as charitable purposes under Pennsylvania law.
• Public benefit does not necessarily require significant foot traffic or recreational use.
• Trails, restrooms, and signage are not necessarily required to establish public benefit.
• Each factor of Pennsylvania’s test for a purely public charity must be considered separately.
• Organizations should still document how the public can learn about and access their properties.

Why was the land trust denied a tax exemption?

Misingwa Land Trust, a Pennsylvania nonprofit with federal 501(c)(3) status, acquired seven parcels of woodland in Beaver County, ranging from 16 to 100 acres, for conservation and historic preservation.

The properties were open to the public free of charge, but they had no marked trails, restrooms, or signage. The Land Trust’s leadership also described public access as “incidental” to its primary conservation mission.

When the Land Trust sought a real estate tax exemption, the Beaver County Board of Assessment denied the request, and the Court of Common Pleas agreed.

The trial court applied the five-part test established in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, commonly known as the HUP test. To qualify as a purely public charity under that test, an organization must:

• Advance a charitable purpose
• Donate or provide a substantial portion of its services gratuitously
• Benefit a substantial and indefinite class of persons
• Relieve the government of some of its burden
• Operate free of private profit motive

The trial court found that the Land Trust satisfied the second and fifth factors but failed the other three. Among other reasons, it concluded that the public did not use the properties “in significant numbers” and that, without signage, the land essentially functioned as a “private park” for the founders’ families.

What did the Commonwealth Court decide?

The Commonwealth Court vacated the trial court’s decision and sent the case back for further proceedings, finding errors in its analysis of all three disputed factors.

Several aspects of the decision are particularly important for conservation and historic-preservation organizations.

Conservation can serve a charitable purpose

The Commonwealth Court found that the trial court improperly combined two separate questions: whether the Land Trust advanced a charitable purpose and whether it benefited a substantial and indefinite class of people.

Each HUP factor must instead be considered separately. The court recognized environmental conservation and historic preservation as charitable purposes, pointing to Pennsylvania’s Environmental Rights Amendment, the History Code, and the Charitable Purposes Act.

Public availability matters more than foot traffic

The Commonwealth Court rejected the idea that significant numbers of people must physically enter the property for it to benefit the public. Instead, the benefit must be available to the public at large.

The court compared the conservation land to the public resource recognized in the landmark Longwood Gardens case, noting that few individuals could afford to purchase and maintain more than 100 acres of woodland for the public’s benefit.

For conservation organizations, that distinction is significant. Land does not necessarily lose its public benefit simply because relatively few people physically visit it.

Signs and trails are not necessarily required

The trial court reasoned that without signs inviting the public onto the property, a “law abiding citizen” could assume that entering the land would constitute trespassing.

The Commonwealth Court rejected that reasoning, explaining that Pennsylvania law requires notice to prohibit trespassing rather than notice granting permission to enter.

The court also identified no requirement that a land conservancy install signs, construct trails, provide restrooms, or advertise its property to qualify for an exemption.

A nonprofit does not have to show that government failed to act

The Commonwealth Court rejected the idea that the Land Trust needed to demonstrate that Beaver County lacked sufficient green space or otherwise failed to conserve land itself.

Land conservation is a recognized governmental responsibility under Pennsylvania law. The court rejected the argument that the properties’ industrial zoning undermined their conservation purpose, explaining that a zoning designation does not require land to be used only for industry.

What should conservation organizations consider?

The decision provides a favorable framework for conservation and historic-preservation organizations seeking a purely public charity exemption. Still, it does not eliminate the need to develop a strong factual record.

Organizations should clearly document the charitable purposes served by their properties and how those purposes benefit the public. When supported by the facts, that may include environmental conservation and scenic and historic preservation, rather than recreational use alone.

Organizations should also consider how they demonstrate that their properties are genuinely available to the public. Although the Commonwealth Court rejected the conclusion that signs or significant foot traffic were required, it left open the question of whether a charity must take steps to inform the public that its resources are available. The court directed the trial court to gather additional evidence about how members of the public could learn that the Land Trust’s properties were open to them.

The decision, therefore, provides important guidance, but public availability remains an issue conservation organizations should be prepared to document.

Organizations and their advisors should also evaluate each HUP factor separately and consider whether older cases involving conservation-property exemptions were decided under different statutory requirements. The constitutional HUP analysis comes first, followed by the statutory analysis under Act 55.

How we can help

Organizations that own conservation land, historic property, or other charitable real estate should consider how their property’s use and public availability may affect eligibility for Pennsylvania’s purely public charity exemption.

McNees’ State and Local Tax Group advises organizations on real estate tax exemptions, assessment appeals, and related property tax matters. Contact our team to discuss how this decision may affect your organization.