S. Schwartz v. Chester County Agricultural Land Preservation
Author
About This Legal Opinion
Schwartz is the latest of many cases in which neighbors (or members of the general public) are denied standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Membership Required
This resource is a Land Trust Alliance member benefit for the staff, board and volunteers of land trust and affiliate member organizations, and Alliance donors at the Protector level.
Schwartz v. Chester County Agricultural Land Preservation
Corrine High in 2003 conveyed a conservation easement on a 65-acre farm to North Coventry Township and Chester County Agricultural Land Preservation Board. High in 2009 launched a composting operation on the farm, receiving complaints that the composting operation violated the conservation easement.
Tallman v. Outhouse, et al.
The Court held that neither neighbors nor the general public has standing to enforce a conservation easement under the New Hampshire conservation easement enabling statute.
Standing Approved or Denied: Who Has the Legal Right to Sue in Easement Cases
Who has the legal right to sue in conservation easement cases? The Alliance's Conservation Defense team has compiled this list of cases where standing was approved or denied.
Knowles v. Codex Corp
This is a standing case where the court denied neighbor standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Bleier v. Board of Trustees of Village of East Hampton
This is a standing case where the court denied neighbor standing to enforce a conservation easement.
Huber v. Dept. of Transportation
This case is another instance in which third-party standing to challenge or enforce a conservation easement has been denied.
Azrael v. Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation
The jurisdictional decision by the Court of Special Appeals essentially grants standing to neighbors to challenge any easement amendment decisions by MALPF, which is a quasi state agency. This decision adds to the holding of Long Green Valley Ass'n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc.
Salmon v. Evans
The trial court and the appellate court held that the county was not authorized to interpret or enforce the conservation easement, which was a private agreement.
Raynal v. National Audubon Society
The District Court held that although the easement in general was a matter of public interest, the neighbors’ claims centered around NAS’ conduct in its private dealings with the neighbors, and thus was not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute.