In New York City, where buildings stand shoulder to shoulder, construction projects often require access to adjoining properties. But what happens when a property owner refuses to grant access? Under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (“RPAPL”) § 881, developers and property owners may petition the court for a license to enter a neighboring property when access is necessary for construction, repairs, or improvements.
While property owners have the right to control access to their land, refusing entry can lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Below, we explore the risks associated with denying property access under RPAPL § 881 and how courts handle such disputes.
Legal Consequences of Denying Access
1. Court-Ordered Access and Potential Penalties
If a property owner refuses to grant access and the petitioner proves the necessity of entry, the court can issue a judicial license to allow access on terms it deems fair. Courts typically impose conditions such as license fees, insurance requirements, indemnification clauses, and repair obligations to protect the adjoining owner.
Moreover, property owners who ignore court-ordered access may face contempt proceedings, which could result in fines or other legal penalties.
2. Financial Liabilities for Project Delays
Construction delays caused by an adjoining owner’s refusal to grant access can lead to significant financial liabilities. Developers may recover damages if they can demonstrate that the delay caused increased construction costs, breach of contract claims, or penalties from investors and lenders. Courts have held that denying reasonable access can make the refusing owner liable for unnecessary project costs.
3. The “Substantial Interference” Standard
A key factor in RPAPL § 881 cases is whether the requested access “substantially interferes” with the neighboring property owner’s use and enjoyment of their land. The First Department in Matter of Spence v. Strauss Park Realty, LLC (2022) ruled that courts will not award license fees, legal costs, or damages unless the respondent proves substantial interference with their property use.
This means that merely inconveniencing the adjoining owner is not enough to deny access—they must demonstrate a significant impact, such as loss of rental income, disruption of business operations, or an unreasonable burden on daily life.
Conclusion
Denying access under RPAPL § 881 is not without consequences. Courts prioritize fairness and necessity over outright refusal, and property owners who reject reasonable requests may face legal penalties, financial liabilities, and even forced access orders.
For property owners and developers navigating access disputes, consulting an experienced construction access agreement attorney can help secure the best possible outcome. At James J. Corbett, P.C., we provide strategic legal counsel to protect your rights while ensuring construction projects proceed without unnecessary delays.
If you have questions about RPAPL § 881 petitions, license agreements, or construction disputes, contact us today for a consultation.
