• People

    Advanced Search

  • Services
  • All Services

  • Back to News & Media
    Blog

    New Jersey’s Right to Farm Act Part Three – Typical Actions Filed Under The Act

    May 12, 2026

     Download as PDF

    Part three of the three-part series will discuss common claims bought under the Right to Farm Act. (N.J.S.A. 4:1C-1 et seq.). In Part One we provided an overview of the Right to Farm Act and in Part Two we discussed the eligibility requirements to bring a claim under the Right to Farm Act. Part Three will discuss typical types of issues or disputes filed with your CADB (County Agricultural Development Board) or the SADC (State Agricultural Development Committee).

    CADB Determinations Sought by Farmers

    A commercial farm can file its own action with its CADB asking the CADB to determine whether a specific farming operation conforms with generally accepted practices to provide the commercial farm protection under the Right to Farm Act (RTFA). The process of seeking this relief is often described as a Site-Specific Agricultural Management Practice (SSAMP) determination and the CADB will need to determine if the farm is in compliance with agricultural management practices (AMPs) that have been promulgated by the SADC, or with generally accepted agricultural practices. The SADC adopted 12 AMPs, which can be found here. The proactive strategy to review a SSAMP is often used to head off a dispute with a neighbor or municipality. Once a farmer requests a SSAMP review, the CABD gives notice to the local municipality and property owners with property within 200 feet of the farm and holds a hearing.

    A commercial farm can also seek approvals for an addition or expansion to its operations and argue that the local municipal laws governing the use of the property (i.e. local zoning laws) are “preempted” by the RTFA. Although the decision on certain uses may be preempted, the CADB is required to seek the input of the local municipality during the hearing process. Often, the issue will turn on whether the agriculturally based reasons for not complying with the local land use standards is valid taking into account how the intended operations impact public health and safety. As you can imagine, this decision is very fact sensitive and the ultimate decision will vary on a case-by-case basis.

    CADB Complaints Filed by Neighbors

    Often, disputes arise when a neighbor complains that farming operations are a nuisance. Typical nuisance claims arise from noise, odors and flooding conditions. If the farm is a commercial farm and meets the requirements under the RTFA, the neighbor cannot file an action in state court but is required to file a complaint with its local CADB or SADC if there is no local board. If a neighbor does file a complaint in state court, the farmer can ask the state court to dismiss the complaint for “lack of jurisdiction” and require the neighbor to proceed before the CADB. The issue of whether the matter should proceed before the CADB or state court is an issue for the CADB to decide, not the state court.

    The CADB will review the farming operation and the impact on adjacent property owners. If the CADB finds that the farm is following generally accepted practices and takes into account any harm to the adjacent property owners, any RTFA decision issued by the CABD will create an “irrebuttable presumption” the farm’s activities do not constitute a nuisance. The farmer and neighbor need to evaluate whether expert testimony is required to meet their burden of proof, an often overlooked issue.

    If a party is not happy with the decision of its CADB, it can appeal the decision to the SADC. If the case is contested, the SADC can refer the matter to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a hearing. After the hearing, the ALJ sends its decision back to the SADC who is required to adopt, reject or modify the “recommendation” of the ALJ. The SADC’s final decision can be appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

    Neighbor disputes are difficult to resolve and can become very emotional. As we discussed in Part Two, the SADC mediation program is designed to help resolve these disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner. However, if litigation is the only true remedy, parties need to look before they leap and analyze the impact on the RTFA on the matter.

    Key Contact

    Timothy P. Duggan
    609.895.7353

    Firm Highlights

    Stark & Stark Shareholder Deborah S. Dunn, Esq. Installed as 2nd Vice President and Diversity Officer of the New Jersey Association for Justice for 2026–2027

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that Shareholder Deborah S. Dunn, Esq. has been installed as 2nd Vice President and Diversity Officer of the...

    Stark & Stark Recognized with Community Partner Award by Mercer County Community College Foundation

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that the firm has been recognized with the Community Partner Award by the Mercer County Community College...

    Carin A. O’Donnell, Esq. Inducted as 2026-2027 President of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that Carin A. O'Donnell, Esq. was sworn in as the 2026-2027 President of the Pennsylvania Association for...

    Stark & Stark’s Thomas S. Onder, Esq. Receives 2026 ICSC Trustees’ Distinguished Service Award

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that Thomas S. Onder, Esq., Shareholder and Chair of the Firm’s Shopping Center & Retail Development...

    Stark & Stark’s Joseph H. Lemkin Esq., Named 2026 Professional Lawyer of the Year for the Jewish Bar Association of New Jersey

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that Joseph H. Lemkin Esq. has been selected by the New Jersey Commission on Professionalism in the Law as...

    Our Values Remain: A Message on the Closing of Diversity Lab

    Stark & Stark is saddened and disappointed to learn that Diversity Lab, the organization that created and manages the Mansfield Certification...

    Congratulations to Shareholder Bhaveen R. Jani, Esq. on his Installation as Treasurer of the Middlesex County Bar Foundation

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce that Shareholder Bhaveen R. Jani, Esq. has been installed as Treasurer of the Middlesex County Bar Foundation,...

    Denise Mariani, Esq., and Jonathan Lauri, Esq. Secure $750,000 Jury Verdict Against Hamilton Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center

    It is our pleasure to announce that Denise Mariani, Esq., and Jonathan Lauri, Esq., secured a $750,000 jury verdict on behalf of a nursing home...

    Stark & Stark Welcomes 2026 Summer Law Clerks

    Stark & Stark is proud to announce its 10th Annual Summer Law Clerk Program. Five Summer Law Clerks will join the firm from June through July...

    Retail Development Team Secures Major Recovery for Landlord Client Amid Bankruptcy Dispute

    Our Shopping Center and Retail Development Group recently secured a multi-million-dollar settlement for a commercial landlord client' s property...

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Catherine Foley, Esq. Secure $950,000 Settlement in Surgical Malpractice Matter

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Catherine Foley, Esq. recently secured a confidential $950,000 settlement in a surgical malpractice case. “This...

    Victoria Wilton, Esq. Selected to Serve on New Jersey State Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee

    We are proud to announce that Victoria Wilton, Esq. has been selected to serve on the New Jersey State Bar Association Family Law Executive Committee...