Court Shines Light on How PA Zoning Treats Agrivoltaics

If you’ve been hearing more about “agrivoltaics”—solar panels paired with crops or livestock—you’re not alone. Across Pennsylvania, farmers are exploring solar energy as a way to generate steady income while keeping land in production. A recent court decision, however, is a reminder that just because a project looks agricultural doesn’t mean it will be treated that way under local zoning law. And for those familiar with how Pennsylvania courts have handled agritourism, the outcome will feel familiar.

In West Lampeter Solar 1, LLC v. West Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board (Jan. 15, 2026), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court considered whether a proposal for a 25-acre solar installation on farmland in an agricultural zoning district constituted a permitted use under the definition of agricultural operation. The project included sheep grazing beneath the panels—an arrangement often promoted as a win-win for sustainable energy production and agriculture. But the township’s zoning ordinance limited non-agricultural uses in that district to five acres, so the entire case turned on a straightforward question: do agrivoltaics constitute agriculture?

The court said no. Rather than relying on the “agrivoltaics” label, the court focused on what it saw as the primary use of the land. In its view, the main purpose of the project was generating electricity, not raising livestock. The sheep grazing component, while real, was secondary. Because of that, the project was classified as a non-agricultural use and denied for exceeding the township’s acreage limit.

That reasoning tracks closely with how Pennsylvania courts have approached agritourism cases over the years. In that context, farmers have argued that activities like weddings, festivals, corn mazes, and event barns should qualify as agricultural uses because they occur on farms and often support farm income. Courts, however, have generally taken a narrow view, asking whether the activity is truly part of producing agricultural products—or instead a separate commercial use that just happens to take place on farmland.

The result in those cases has often been the same: if the activity is not directly tied to the production of crops or livestock, it is treated as non-agricultural for zoning purposes. Hosting events, even on an active farm, does not become agriculture simply because of the setting. The West Lampeter Solar decision applies that same logic in a newer context. Generating electricity—even alongside grazing—does not become agriculture simply because it occurs on farmland or involves agriculture.

For farmers, this reflects a broader pattern. Pennsylvania courts tend to focus less on whether a use supports a farm financially and more on whether it is inherently agricultural in nature. Income diversification alone—whether through weddings, festivals, or solar leases—is usually not enough to bring an activity within the definition of agriculture under local zoning ordinances.

The practical implications are significant. Solar projects may be regulated as commercial or industrial uses, even when paired with farming activities. That can trigger acreage limits, additional approvals, or outright prohibitions, depending on the municipality. 

Just as importantly, this case reinforces how much local ordinance language matters. Some municipalities have updated their zoning codes to specifically address solar or agritourism. Others have not. Where the ordinance is silent or restrictive, courts are unlikely to stretch the definition of agriculture to accommodate newer or hybrid land uses.

None of this means farmers should avoid solar or other diversification opportunities. But it does mean these projects require careful planning and it is recommended that farmers consult with a local agriculture attorney or real estate attorney to review their zoning language to understand how “agriculture” is defined, and engaging with township officials early can make the difference between a viable project and a denied one.

The bottom line is consistent with what we’ve seen in agritourism cases: in Pennsylvania, agriculture is defined narrowly for zoning purposes. Whether the use is event-based or energy-based, courts are likely to ask the same question—is this actually farming, or is it something else happening on a farm? After West Lampeter Solar, that distinction matters as much as ever.

You can read our blog posts about agritourism considerations here, or check out other free resources on Legal Considerations in Sustainable Agriculture and the Farmer’s Legal Health Checklist.

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is meant for informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Readers should discuss their specific situation and considerations with an attorney.