Challenges and Litigation under the Pennsylvania Building Code: Key Lawsuits and Legal Landscape

In Pennsylvania, the statewide building code regime is governed primarily by the Pennsylvania Construction Code Act (PCCA) and regulations promulgated under it, notably the Uniform Construction Code (UCC). These statutes and regulations affect how buildings are constructed, modified or used, and they frequently become the subject of litigation. This article—written from the perspective of U.S. building-code and administrative law—explores major lawsuits in Pennsylvania involving building code issues, the legal arguments raised, and implications for stakeholders in the built-environment.

Building Code Framework in Pennsylvania

Under Pennsylvania law, the Department of Labor & Industry (L&I) administers the UCC on behalf of the Commonwealth. Municipalities may adopt and enforce the UCC (or portions thereof) locally by election, or rely on third-party agencies. The regulations include administrative enforcement provisions—e.g., building code officials may issue “orders to show cause” and vacate unsafe buildings.

However, despite this uniform regulatory framework, Pennsylvania has seen litigation over building-code adoption, enforcement and alleged discriminatory or unconstitutional aspects of the regulations.

Key Litigation Examples

1. Clean Air Council v. Commonwealth (2015)

Environmental plaintiffs challenged the state’s refusal to adopt more recent model building codes (specifically, the 2015 updates from the International Code Council) that would have improved energy efficiency. They alleged that the Review & Advisory Council (RAC)’s rejection of nearly all 1,900 changes as of May 20 2015 violated state law and the PCCA’s intent. The lawsuit claimed that rejecting the updated code standard left Pennsylvania buildings saddled with outdated energy-standards; the RAC’s process under Act 1 (2011) was challenged as overly burdensome and inhibiting adoption of modern codes.

This case underscores how building code litigation can arise not just from enforcement of the code, but from the code-adoption process itself—especially when stakeholders feel the standards are outdated or unfairly applied.

2. Pennsylvania Builders Association v. Department of Labor & Industry (2022)

In this case (479 M.D. 2021), the Builders Association challenged the 2021 Accessibility Regulations adopted under the UCC, seeking a declaratory judgment that the statutory basis (Section 304(a)(3) of the PCCA) was unconstitutional because it delegated rulemaking authority to the non-governmental ICC in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Commonwealth Court held the regulation invalid and permanently enjoined enforcement of the 2021 accessibility standards, effective immediately. The decision had a significant impact: while non-accessibility UCC provisions remained in effect, the accessibility standards could no longer be enforced until new valid regulations were promulgated.

This case demonstrates how regulated entities (builders, remodelers) may successfully challenge the legal basis of a code or regulation—and how courts may halt enforcement when procedural or constitutional defects are found in the rulemaking.

3. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2024)

In a somewhat different context, the DOJ filed suit against Pennsylvania alleging that the UCC’s classification of “community homes” for persons with intellectual disabilities and autism (requiring automatic sprinkler systems under the UCC) discriminated in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The complaint claimed that while other single-family homes were exempt from the sprinkler requirement, homes for persons with disabilities were treated as “facilities” and forced to install costly sprinkler systems (often upwards of $10,000), limiting housing options for people with disabilities.

Here, the litigation arises at the intersection of building-code regulation, housing discrimination law, and disability rights—highlighting how code requirements may trigger civil-rights and fair-housing issues when applied selectively.

Legal Themes & Implications

Several recurring themes emerge in Pennsylvania building-code lawsuits:

• Rulemaking and statutory authority: As the Pennsylvania Builders Association case shows, regulated parties may challenge whether the enabling statute properly authorizes the regulations or whether the agency exceeded its authority.
• Uniformity vs local standards: The UCC is intended to create a consistent statewide code. In jurisdictions such as Schuylkill Township v. Pennsylvania Builders Assn., a municipality’s attempt to impose stricter standards (e.g., mandatory sprinklers) was struck down because local conditions did not justify deviation from statewide standards.
• Enforcement and due process: The code includes provisions for inspection, entry, vacating unsafe buildings, which raise rights of property owners. For example, 34 Pa. Code § 403.84 allows vacating of unsafe structures. Owners must be given notice and opportunity to respond.
• Discrimination & equal treatment: The DOJ case underscores that building-code requirements cannot be applied in a manner that discriminates against protected classes (e.g., persons with disabilities) under federal laws.
• Statute of repose and building-code violations: Some recent commentary (e.g., in legislative summaries) observes that building-code violations may affect whether a construction professional’s immunity under Pennsylvania’s statute of repose applies (i.e., if work was not “lawfully provided” because it violated code).

Practical Takeaways for Stakeholders

• For property owners & builders: Be alert to which version of the UCC is in effect (note updates set for January 1 2026 to adopt 2021 International Codes under amendments). Ensure permits and construction comply with the correct code edition, as failure may expose you to enforcement actions or liability.
• For municipalities & code-officials: Ensure rulemaking and enforcement actions are backed by lawful authority, provide proper notice, and apply standards uniformly to avoid discrimination claims or constitutional challenges.
• For individuals wanting to challenge a code or its enforcement:
  • Identify whether the code was validly adopted (statute, rule-making process)
  • Determine whether the enforcement action meets required due-process protections (notice, response)
  • Assess whether selective enforcement might amount to discrimination under federal law
• For attorneys advising clients: In litigation involving building codes, the strategy may involve declaratory judgment actions (to invalidate regulations), defense of enforcement orders (vacating unsafe buildings), or even civil-rights or ADA/FHA claims when code requirements disadvantage protected individuals.

Conclusion

Litigation over the Pennsylvania building code regime is robust and multifaceted. From challenges to code-adoption procedures, to enforcement of safety orders, to Fair Housing Act discrimination claims tied to code requirements, the legal landscape is dynamic. Anyone involved in construction, real-estate development, property ownership or code enforcement in Pennsylvania should understand the legal basis of the UCC, the procedural protections required for enforcement, and the potential for constitutional or discrimination‐based challenges to seemingly routine building-code requirements. The cases discussed above illustrate how code issues evolve beyond mere inspection or permit disputes—they may implicate rulemaking authority, equal-treatment mandates, and long-term liability for code violation.