New York Overhauls Neighboring Construction Access Law
In December 2025, New York State enacted the most sweeping reform in decades to Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law §881 (“RPAPL §881”), the statute that governs when a property owner may access a neighboring property to perform construction, demolition, or improvement work. The amendment represents a major modernization of a framework that had remained largely unchanged since 1968.
For years, RPAPL §881 was criticized for its broad, vague language and reliance on case-by-case judicial interpretation. Developers frequently struggled to obtain the access necessary to complete projects, while adjoining property owners often faced prolonged disputes with few statutory protections. The updated law aims to bring clarity, predictability, and fairness to a process that had become notoriously contentious.
One of the most significant revisions addresses a long-standing point of confusion: what exactly counts as a refusal of access. Under the old statute, silence or delayed responses often led to disputes as courts tried to interpret an adjoining owner’s intent.
The amendment resolves this ambiguity by establishing a clear procedural rule: if an adjoining property owner does not respond within 60 days to a properly delivered access request, the law deems that lack of response a refusal. This change streamlines the initiation of RPAPL §881 proceedings and prevents standstills where a neighbor simply ignores communication.
The statute also places responsibility on the requesting party to ensure that notices reach the correct owner, prompting developers to conduct diligent searches to confirm ownership details.
Previously, RPAPL §881 only provided for compensation when a neighbor’s property was physically damaged by construction work. This limited protection left many property owners without recourse for disruptions that affected the usability or value of their space.
The updated law significantly expands these rights. Now, the party seeking access must compensate the adjoining owner for loss of use and enjoyment, which may include diminished property value, temporary interference with normal operations, or extended disruptions. Courts now have broad discretion to determine what constitutes “reasonable compensation,” allowing for more nuanced and equitable outcomes.
This change not only strengthens the protections available to neighbors but also requires developers to anticipate and budget for these additional costs as part of their project planning.
Historically, courts relied heavily on case law to identify what types of access and safety measures were permissible under RPAPL §881. The amendment now provides clear statutory categories of allowable actions, including:
By outlining specific examples, the law reduces uncertainty and helps expedite negotiations and court determinations.
The most transformative component of the reform is the statute’s new authorization for courts to grant permanent encroachments. Under prior interpretations, RPAPL §881 was widely understood to cover only temporary access needs. Developers who required permanent structural changes, such as underpinning a neighboring foundation or rerouting building systems, often had no legal avenue if negotiations failed.
The amendment made dramatic changes on this front. Courts may now issue licenses that permit permanent alterations affecting the adjoining property, with compensation determined based on the nature and value of the encroachment. This new authority may also reshape negotiation dynamics, reducing the ability of adjoining owners to indefinitely block development projects. At the same time, it raises potential constitutional questions involving takings and property rights that could be the subject of future litigation.
By the amendments to RPAPL §881 clarifying refusal standards, expanding compensation rights, outlining permissible access measures, and authorizing permanent encroachments, long-needed modernization should be achieved for a subject matter which most affects urban areas like New York City.
As these changes take effect, property owners, developers, architects, and their respective lawyers will need to familiarize themselves with the new legal landscape—and prepare for a more structured, but still evolving, framework governing access to neighboring property.
Andrew J. Mundo, Esq., MURTAGH, COHEN, BYRNE & MURDY
amundo@MCB50Law.com