Relates to land owned by not-for-profit conservation organizations
This bill amends New York’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to give not-for-profit conservation organizations stronger protections for land they own in fee and for land subject to conservation easements. It provides that no amount of possession, prescription, use, or occupancy can create or continue a property right in such land, effectively barring adverse possession claims against conservation lands and easement lands covered by the bill.
The bill also creates a new cause of action for owners of open space land, holders of conservation easements, and the Attorney General to sue anyone who encroaches on protected land without permission or legal authorization. “Encroach” is defined broadly to include building structures, constructing roads or trails, damaging vegetation, removing boundary markers, installing utilities or lawns, or storing debris or vehicles. Courts would be required to order restoration of the land or award restoration costs, and could also grant attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and enhanced damages up to three times the cost of restoration based on factors such as willfulness, environmental damage, and economic gain.
The bill’s impact on state law would be to expand statutory protections for conservation lands and align remedies for private conservation organizations more closely with those available to public entities. It would add new sections to the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, creating a categorical bar to adverse possession for specified conservation property and a detailed enforcement mechanism for encroachments, including restoration and treble damages. The bill also references conservation easements under the Environmental Conservation Law and uses arboricultural appraisal standards to measure tree and shrub damage.
General sentiment in the bill text is strongly supportive of conservation organizations and land stewardship. The legislative findings emphasize the costs and burdens these organizations face in monitoring and defending protected lands, and the need to deter malicious trespass and preserve open space. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
The main point of contention likely concerns the breadth of the new liability and enforcement provisions, especially the broad definition of encroachment and the availability of treble damages and attorney’s fees. Potentially affected parties include landowners adjacent to conservation lands, individuals or entities using land without clear authorization, and developers or others whose activities could be construed as encroachments. Supporters would likely include land trusts, environmental advocates, and conservation easement holders, while critics may focus on property-rights concerns and the risk of expansive litigation.
The bill would amend the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law by adding a new adverse-possession bar for land owned by not-for-profit conservation organizations and land subject to conservation easements, and by creating a new enforcement action for encroachments on open space land. It would authorize restoration orders, restoration-cost awards, attorney’s fees, injunctive relief, and enhanced damages up to three times restoration costs, thereby increasing legal protections and remedies for conservation landowners and the Attorney General.
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a pro-conservation, pro-enforcement posture, with the legislature finding that existing remedies are inadequate to protect conserved lands from encroachment and adverse possession. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available record shows no explicit opposition or support from legislators beyond the bill’s text, but the framing suggests strong support from conservation advocates and land stewardship interests.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definition of “encroach,” the categorical elimination of adverse possession claims for covered lands, and the potential for treble damages and attorney’s fees. Critics may argue these provisions could expose land users or neighboring property owners to significant liability for disputed or minor intrusions, while supporters would contend the measures are necessary to deter intentional damage, protect open space, and reduce the costs borne by conservation organizations.