Real Estate Law · Pittsburgh
Use and Occupancy Certificates in Pennsylvania: What MCOCA Requires at the Time of Sale
Your closing is in two weeks. The borough just found a violation and is demanding repairs before issuing the certificate. That demand is unlawful under Pennsylvania’s Municipal Code and Ordinance Compliance Act. MCOCA requires the municipality to issue a certificate regardless of what the inspection finds. What changes is the type of certificate: a clean inspection gets a full U&O, violations get a temporary U&O, and a substantial violation that makes the property unfit for habitation gets a temporary access certificate that bars occupancy until repairs are made. The municipality cannot require escrow, cannot require a bond, and cannot shorten the twelve-month compliance window the buyer receives by law. The municipality does not get to rewrite those rules transaction by transaction.
Does this sound like your situation?
A violation found at a U&O inspection cannot legally block a closing under MCOCA. The municipality must issue a certificate. Stalling a transaction over a non-substantial violation is a statutory violation by the municipality.
Presettlement repairs cannot be required by the municipality under MCOCA. The buyer and seller can negotiate repairs voluntarily, but the municipality cannot make them a condition of the certificate.
Unpermitted construction discovered at a U&O inspection is a pre-existing violation already subject to enforcement. MCOCA’s protections may not apply. That is a different legal track requiring separate handling.
As the buyer you inherit the obligation to correct the violations within twelve months of closing. You can negotiate with the seller over who pays, but the municipality cannot require that to happen before settlement.
MCOCA expressly prohibits municipalities from requiring escrow or bond as a condition of issuing any U&O certificate. That requirement is unlawful and can be challenged.
MCOCA requires the municipality to issue a certificate prior to the date of purchase. Failure to schedule the inspection in time is a municipal compliance problem, not a reason to delay the closing indefinitely.
A violation found at the inspection does not kill the deal. The municipality cannot make you fix things before closing. It can make you think it can.
The Municipality Is Blocking Your Closing. That May Be Unlawful Under Pennsylvania Law.
Call 412-351-4422 or schedule a consultation before accepting a delay or making repairs the law does not require.
What MCOCA Is and What It Covers
MCOCA applies only to violations found during a point-of-sale inspection. It does not apply to violations that were already the subject of a fine or judicial action against the seller before the sale, or to properties subject to certain other statutory provisions such as the Neighborhood Blight Reclamation and Revitalization Act. Pre-existing violations already in enforcement proceed under their own rules. A buyer who takes title subject to an active code enforcement action does not receive MCOCA’s twelve-month compliance window on that violation. This distinction matters significantly for properties with unpermitted construction already under municipal scrutiny at the time of sale.
The Three Certificate Types
Every municipality that requires a U&O inspection must issue one of three certificates before the closing date. All three allow the transaction to close. Which certificate issues depends on what the inspection finds.
A full use and occupancy certificate issues when the inspection reveals no violations. The property may be used and occupied as intended from the date of closing. This is the clean result.
A temporary use and occupancy certificate issues when the inspection reveals at least one violation but no substantial violation. The buyer can move in, occupy the property fully, and live there normally while completing repairs within the twelve-month compliance window. The transaction closes. The buyer’s life proceeds. The violations are addressed on the buyer’s timeline within the statutory period.
A temporary access certificate issues when the inspection reveals a substantial violation that renders the building unfit for habitation. This is the most restrictive outcome. The buyer may access the property to make repairs and may store equipment and materials there, but may not occupy it. No one may live in the property during the term of the temporary access certificate. Once the substantial violations are corrected and verified through reinspection, the municipality upgrades to a temporary U&O certificate, which allows occupancy while remaining non-substantial violations are addressed. Once all violations are corrected, the full U&O certificate issues.
What Counts as a Substantial Violation
The distinction between a violation and a substantial violation determines which certificate issues and whether the buyer can occupy the property at closing. MCOCA defines a substantial violation as a condition that renders a building unfit for habitation.
Unfit for habitation means a condition that is dangerous or injurious to the health, safety, or physical welfare of an occupant or occupants of neighboring dwellings. The statute identifies four categories: a significant increase in the hazards of fire or accident; inadequate sanitary facilities; vermin infestation; or a condition of disrepair, dilapidation, or structural defects such that the cost of rehabilitation and repair would exceed one-half of the agreed-upon purchase price of the property. That last category, the fifty-percent-of-purchase-price threshold, is the one most commonly contested. On a $400,000 property, a repair cost estimate would have to exceed $200,000 before the cost-of-repair prong of the substantial violation definition is triggered.
The substantial violation classification is always somewhat subjective on the inspector’s end. When a municipality classifies a condition as a substantial violation, that classification has significant consequences: it bars occupancy and requires a temporary access certificate instead of the more permissive temporary U&O. A municipality that overclassifies a violation as substantial, triggering a temporary access certificate on a property that should have received a temporary U&O, may be acting outside what MCOCA permits. That classification is contestable.
What the Municipality Cannot Do
MCOCA’s prohibitions are as important as its requirements. Municipalities and municipal authorities operating point-of-sale inspection programs regularly exceed what the statute permits. Knowing the limits matters before accepting a demand that has no legal basis.
A municipality cannot require presettlement repairs as a condition of issuing any certificate. Regardless of what the inspection finds, the municipality must issue the appropriate certificate before the closing. The buyer and seller can negotiate repairs voluntarily and structure the transaction however they choose, but the municipality has no authority under MCOCA to make repairs happen before it issues the certificate.
A municipality cannot require escrow of funds, posting of a bond, or any similar financial security as a condition of issuing a certificate. This prohibition is express. A municipality that conditions issuance of a U&O certificate on the seller or buyer depositing money into escrow is violating MCOCA.
A municipality cannot shorten the twelve-month compliance window. The buyer has twelve months from the date of purchase to bring the property into compliance or demolish the building. The municipality and the property owner may negotiate a longer period, but the statute prohibits shortening it below twelve months.
A municipality cannot impose special repair-related fees that would not otherwise apply to the same work outside the U&O context. If a building permit with a fee is always required to do a particular type of repair, that same permit and fee apply during the compliance period. But a municipality cannot create a special permit requirement or fee that applies only because the repair is being done in response to a U&O inspection.
Unpermitted Construction and the MCOCA Exception
MCOCA’s protections do not apply to violations that were already the subject of a fine or judicial action against the current owner before the point-of-sale inspection. This exception has significant practical consequences for properties with unpermitted construction.
If a seller has been building without a permit and the municipality has already issued a violation notice, issued a fine, or initiated any judicial enforcement action before the sale, that violation proceeds under its own enforcement rules. A buyer who takes title to that property does not receive a twelve-month compliance window under MCOCA for the pre-existing violation. The buyer steps into the enforcement posture the seller was already in.
When unpermitted construction is discovered for the first time at the point-of-sale inspection, however, the analysis is more nuanced. The municipality has just learned about the violation through the inspection process. Whether MCOCA applies to that freshly discovered violation, or whether the municipality can immediately treat it as outside MCOCA because it is now initiating enforcement, depends on the specific facts and how the municipality classifies it. This is exactly the kind of situation where the buyer, the seller, and the municipality are all operating simultaneously with different interests, different statutory frameworks, and different timelines. It requires legal analysis specific to the property and the municipality before the closing.
Illustrative example: A seller in an Allegheny County borough listed a home with a finished basement that had been completed without a permit. The municipality conducted its point-of-sale inspection two weeks before the scheduled closing and discovered the unpermitted space. The municipality issued a violation notice the same day, initiating enforcement. The borough then took the position that because enforcement was now active, MCOCA did not require it to issue any certificate before closing and the sale could not proceed. The buyer had financing approved and a moving date scheduled. The seller had a purchase contract on their next home contingent on this closing. The question of whether the municipality had correctly removed itself from MCOCA’s certificate-issuance requirements, and what leverage the parties had to negotiate a resolution that allowed the closing to proceed, required legal analysis of both the MCOCA framework and the borough’s separate code enforcement authority simultaneously.
The Twelve-Month Compliance Period and What Happens After
A buyer who receives a temporary U&O or temporary access certificate has twelve months from the date of purchase to bring the property into compliance. At the end of that period, or earlier if the buyer requests, the municipality reinspects.
If a temporary access certificate was issued and reinspection shows the substantial violations have been corrected but non-substantial violations remain, the municipality upgrades the certificate to a temporary U&O, allowing the owner to occupy the property while finishing the remaining work. Once all violations are corrected and verified, the municipality issues the full U&O certificate.
If the twelve-month period expires without the violations being corrected, the municipality may revoke the temporary certificate. Revocation means the owner no longer has a valid certificate to occupy the property. The owner becomes subject to existing municipal ordinances covering occupation without a proper certificate, can be ordered to vacate, and is personally liable for the costs of repairs or demolition sufficient to correct the violations. The statute also imposes an additional fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 on an owner who fails to correct violations within the compliance period.
The municipality and the property owner may negotiate an extension beyond twelve months. That extension must be voluntary on both sides. The municipality cannot impose a shorter window, but it is not required to agree to a longer one.
Buyer and Seller Negotiations Under MCOCA
MCOCA removes the municipality from the repair negotiation between buyer and seller. The municipality must issue the certificate regardless. What the parties do with the violations is up to them.
The structure that makes sense depends on what the violations are, how much they cost to correct, and how the buyer’s lender reacts to the certificate type. MCOCA removes the municipality from that negotiation entirely. The parties work it out. The municipality issues the certificate and steps back.
The certificate type determines whether the buyer can occupy the property at closing. A temporary access certificate bars occupancy. Most lenders will not fund a mortgage on a property the borrower cannot legally occupy.
Call 412-351-4422 or schedule a consultation before closing on a property with a temporary access certificate or a contested substantial violation classification.
Frequently Asked Questions: U&O Certificates and MCOCA in Pennsylvania
Does every Pennsylvania municipality require a U&O inspection before a home can be sold?
No. MCOCA does not require municipalities to conduct point-of-sale inspections. Many municipalities, particularly in rural areas, do not. In Allegheny County, inspection requirements vary by municipality. Some require it, some do not. The requirement is determined by local ordinance. Before listing a property or entering an agreement of sale, the seller should confirm whether the municipality has a point-of-sale inspection requirement and what it covers.
My lender says it will not fund the loan because of the certificate type. What are my options?
A temporary access certificate bars occupancy, and most residential mortgage lenders require the borrower to be able to legally occupy the property at closing. If the lender will not fund, your options are: negotiate with the seller to correct the substantial violations before closing so the municipality can upgrade to a temporary U&O; seek a short closing extension while the substantial violation is remediated; or if the municipality has misclassified a non-substantial violation as substantial, challenge that classification before closing. The lender financing problem and the municipal certificate problem are two separate issues that must be solved simultaneously.
What is the difference between a temporary U&O certificate and a temporary access certificate?
A temporary U&O certificate allows the buyer to fully occupy and use the property while making repairs within the twelve-month compliance period. A temporary access certificate, issued when a substantial violation is found, bars occupancy entirely. The buyer may only enter the property to make repairs and store materials. No one may live there until the substantial violations are corrected and a reinspection upgrades the certificate.
Can the municipality require money to be escrowed before issuing a U&O certificate?
No. MCOCA expressly prohibits municipalities from requiring escrow of funds, posting of a bond, or any similar financial security as a condition of issuing a certificate. A municipality that makes this demand is acting outside what the statute permits.
What happens if unpermitted construction is discovered at the U&O inspection?
If the unpermitted work was not already subject to a fine or enforcement action, the municipality may treat it as a newly discovered violation subject to MCOCA’s certificate-issuance requirements. If enforcement was already active before the point-of-sale inspection, MCOCA’s protections do not apply to that violation and the enforcement proceeds under its own rules. The distinction matters significantly and requires analysis specific to the property and municipality.
Can a lender refuse to fund a mortgage if the property has a temporary access certificate?
Yes. A temporary access certificate bars occupancy. Most residential mortgage lenders require that the borrower be able to legally occupy the property at closing. A temporary access certificate on a primary residence purchase creates a financing problem that is separate from the MCOCA compliance issue. Buyers should raise this with their lender before closing, not after.
Lebovitz & Lebovitz, P.A. · Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, near the Parkway East (Swissvale-Edgewood exit). Serving Allegheny County and southwestern Pennsylvania.
This page is based on Pennsylvania’s Municipal Code and Ordinance Compliance Act as amended through Act 93 of 2024. For the text of the original Act 99 of 2000 and its amendments, see Act 99 of 2000, Act 133 of 2016, and Act 93 of 2024 through the Pennsylvania General Assembly.
Which Allegheny County Municipalities Require a U&O Inspection
Not every Allegheny County municipality requires a point-of-sale U&O inspection. The requirement is set by local ordinance and changes over time. The list below reflects current practice as we understand it. Always confirm directly with the municipality before listing or entering an agreement of sale. Last verified: July 2026.
Require a U&O inspection at resale (Allegheny County): City of Pittsburgh (Bureau of Building Inspection), Bethel Park, Brentwood Borough, Carnegie Borough, Crafton Borough, Dormont Borough, Edgewood Borough, Forest Hills Borough, Fox Chapel Borough, Green Tree Borough, Heidelberg Borough, McKees Rocks Borough, Millvale Borough, Mt. Oliver Borough, Munhall Borough, Penn Hills Township, Sharpsburg Borough, Swissvale Borough, West Mifflin Borough, Whitehall Borough, and Wilkinsburg Borough.
Do not require a U&O inspection at resale (current ordinance): Mt. Lebanon Township, Peters Township, Scott Township, Sewickley Borough, South Fayette Township, and Upper St. Clair Township.
This list is not exhaustive. Municipal ordinances change. If your municipality is not listed, contact the borough or township manager’s office or the building code official directly and ask whether a U&O inspection is required before closing on a residential resale. Confirm in writing. Do not rely on what a listing agent or title company tells you without verifying it with the municipality itself.
This page relates to our work in Real Estate Law. For unpermitted construction discovered at the time of sale, see building without a permit in Pennsylvania. For seller disclosure obligations generally, see seller disclosure in Pennsylvania. For real estate contract disputes that arise when a closing stalls, see real estate contract breach in Pennsylvania.