In recent years, real estate tax exemptions for charitable organizations have come under increasing scrutiny across Pennsylvania. School districts and municipalities, facing budget pressures, are more aggressively challenging exemptions, while nonprofits have grown more operationally complex. Recent Pennsylvania court decisions suggest that although courts remain receptive to granting exemptions, they are demanding a clearer, fact-driven showing that an organization qualifies as a “purely public charity.”
THE GOVERNING LEGAL FRAMEWORK
The legal framework is familiar to most practitioners. Article VIII, Section 2(a) (v) of the Pennsylvania Constitution authorizes tax exemptions for institutions of purely public charity. Courts apply the five-part test articulated in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth (“HUP”), alongside the statutory requirements set forth in the Institutions of Purely Public Charity Act. To qualify, an entity must demonstrate that it: 1) advances a charitable purpose; 2)donates or renders gratuitous services; 3) benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons; 4) relieves the government of some burden; and, 5) operates free from private profit motive. Importantly, both the constitutional and statutory tests must be satisfied.
MODERN NONPROFITS AND THE ‘PRIVATE PROFIT QUESTION’
Recent case law has focused less on abstract definitions of charity and more on how modern nonprofits actually operate. In Pottstown Sch. Dist. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether a hospital operating within a larger nonprofit health system qualified for exemption. Reversing the Commonwealth Court, the Court emphasized that the proper inquiry focuses on the entity itself — not the broader corporate structure. The existence of affiliated entities, management agreements or performance-based executive compensation did not, standing alone, establish a disqualifying private profit motive. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the analysis must be contextual and grounded in the organization’s actual operations.
This clarification is significant. For nonprofit leaders and operators, it confirms that growth, scale and financial sophistication do not automatically jeopardize tax-exempt status. Many organizations today rely on complex structures, shared services and professionalized management. The Court’s decision signals that these realities are acceptable — so long as the organization’s core activities remain genuinely charitable and any revenue ultimately supports that mission.
BROADER APPLICATION OF THE TEST
At the same time, courts continue to demand meaningful proof of charitable activity. In Lazarus Hous., LLC v. Allentown Sch. Dist, the Court of Common Pleas upheld a real estate tax exemption for an affordable housing nonprofit, emphasizing the organization’s service to low-income residents and its role in alleviating housing burdens that might otherwise fall on government. The decision underscores that the HUP test is not limited to health-care institutions and remains fully applicable across the service sector.
IN PRACTICE
For those operating nonprofits, these cases highlight a practical reality: exemption depends not just on mission statements, but on day-to-day operations. Organizations should be prepared to clearly show who they serve, how those services are provided and why those services would otherwise fall to the government. Activities that generate revenue — such as leasing space, charging fees or offering ancillary services — are not prohibited, but they must be closely tied to and supportive of the charitable purpose. Where properties are used for mixed purposes, the risk of full loss of real estate tax exemption increases.
Another key takeaway is the importance of consistency. Courts are looking for alignment between what an organization says it does and what it actually does. This includes how it allocates resources, how it structures relationships with affiliates and how it uses its real estate. Even well-intentioned organizations can face challenges if their operations begin to resemble those of a commercial enterprise without a clear charitable nexus.
CONCLUSION
Ultimately, Pennsylvania courts have not narrowed the availability of the charitable real estate tax exemption, but they have clarified what is required to obtain and maintain it. Exemption is no longer assumed based on nonprofit status alone. Instead, it must be supported by a demonstrable record of charitable conduct, grounded in real-world operations. As nonprofit models continue to evolve, organizations that remain focused on transparency, mission alignment and measurable community impact will be best positioned to preserve this valuable benefit.
For more information, visit macdonaldillig.com.
Rachel Loper is an associate at MacDonald Illig Attorneys and her practice focuses on Banking & Finance, Real Estate and Business Transactions.
