• People

    Advanced Search

  • Services
  • All Services

  • Back to News & Media
    Blog

    What Owners Need to Know About the Pennsylvania MHCRA

    April 1, 2026

     Download as PDF

    Operating a manufactured home community in Pennsylvania involves legal obligations that differ significantly from traditional apartment management. Because residents typically own their home but rent the land, the relationship between community owner and resident is governed by the Pennsylvania Manufactured Home Community Rights Act (“MHCRA”), 68 P.S. § 398.1 et seq.

    For community owners, failure to comply with the MHCRA can result in dismissed eviction actions, delays in removing non-paying residents, and, in some cases, monetary liability owed to the resident. Understanding the MHCRA’s procedural requirements is therefore essential for protecting rental income, maintaining community standards, and avoiding unnecessary litigation.

    Why the MHCRA Matters for Community Owners

    The MHCRA treats manufactured home communities differently from typical residential rentals. Because relocating a manufactured home can be costly or impractical, the MHCRA gives residents additional protections.

    For community owners, this means:

    • Evictions are allowed only for specific statutory reasons;
    • Notice requirements are more detailed than standard landlord-tenant notices;
    • Many statutory protections cannot be waived in the lease; and
    • Procedural mistakes can delay evictions for months.

    Careful compliance with the MHCRA is therefore critical before initiating any eviction action.

    Grounds for Eviction

    Community owners cannot terminate a tenancy simply because the relationship has become difficult or unprofitable. Unlike traditional residential evictions, termination of leases and/or eviction under the MHCRA is permitted only for specific statutory reasons including:

    • nonpayment of rent;
    • repeated or substantial violations of community rules;
    • material breaches of the lease; and/or
    • the closure of the community.

    See, e.g. 68 P.S. § 398.3(e).

    These are not just examples. These grounds are exclusive, and attempting to remove a resident for any other reason outside those in the statute – even if they seem reasonable from a business perspective and even if you have been more than accommodating in the past – could result in the dismissal of your eviction suit. Also, many requirements in the MHCRA cannot be waived in the Lease.

    Therefore, it is in all community owners’ interest to create best practices for documenting community complaints and disputes in order to enforce them down the road. Community owners should maintain detailed documentation of:

    • rule violations;
    • notices issued;
    • photographs;
    • records of prior warnings;
    • logs of resident complaint; and,
    • any efforts made to resolve issues short of eviction.

    Equally important is consistent enforcement. Selective or uneven application of community rules may expose owners to claims of retaliation or discrimination under the MHCRA.

    Notice and Opportunity to Cure

    While general eviction processes in Pennsylvania typically provide for pre-eviction notice, the MHCRA requires community owners to provide special notice that contains specific information that a typical Notice to Quit does not require and contains added requirements.

    First, there is statutory language that must be included: the amount of unpaid rent outstanding, or, in the event of a rules violation eviction, you must send a notice after the first violation with the rule(s) that were broken and cautioning that additional violations would result in eviction. Second, the date matters. If notice is being given between April 1 and September 1, then 20 days’ notice is required. If notice is being given during any other time of year, you are required to give 30 days’ notice. This is mandatory.

    These unique rules differ depending on the reason for eviction. Compliance throughout every stage of the process is important in order to avoid defects in your claim for eviction.

    Eviction Process

    Pennsylvania does not allow for self-help evictions. This includes, locking a resident out, shutting off utilities, towing or removing the home, blocking access to the lot, or changing the locks. Even if rent is months overdue and even if the resident has put in writing that they agree the are overdue on rent, possession must be obtained through the judicial process. Otherwise, you open yourself up to claims from the resident.

    The eviction process follows the same legal process as any other eviction in the Commonwealth, especially if the owner files suit in the Magisterial District Court. Owners can (on average) expect to have a hearing in less than 45 days weeks and, if successful, initiate a lockout within the next 30 days (absent an appeal).

    An eviction does not automatically grant the community owner the right to take possession of the home itself; it only removes the residents from the community. If the evicted resident vacates the home and takes no steps to remove the home from the community, owners must pursue separate abandonment proceedings in Magisterial District Court in order to exert control over the home and any other property in the home.

    This process can create extended vacancy periods and owner liability if not handled properly.

    Conclusion

    If you are a manufactured home community owner, understanding your obligations under the law is critical to minimize the impact on your business.

    Consulting with counsel that is familiar with the MHCRA and your business can help minimize vacancies and limit legal exposure.

    Stark & Stark regularly represents landlords, including manufactured home community owners, in all matters relating to their business, including representing them in the acquisition of new communities, lease compliance, rules & regulations compliance, and litigation.

    Firm Highlights

    Stark & Stark Joins Growing Coalition of Law Firms in Defense of Constitutional Principles and the Independence of the Legal Profession

    Stark & Stark has joined hundreds of fellow law firms across the country in filing an amicus brief supporting Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Jenner...

    Stark & Stark Attorneys Recognized as New Jersey “Super Lawyers” and “Rising Stars” in 2026

    Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that 15 of its attorneys have been selected for inclusion in the list of 2026 New Jersey Super Lawyers,...

    Bruce Stern, Esq. Secures $1,000,000 Settlement in Motor Vehicle Collision Case

    Bruce Stern, Esq. recently secured a $1,000,000 settlement in a motor vehicle collision case.* “This case highlights how quickly things can go...

    Deborah Dunn, Esq. Elected to Board of Directors for Angel Flight East

    Stark & Stark is pleased to announce that Deborah Dunn, Esq., Shareholder and Civil Trial Attorney, has been elected to the Board of Directors...

    Michael Jordan, Esq. Joins the Board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation

    It is our pleasure to announce that Michael Jordan, Esq. has joined the board of the Lawrence Township Community Foundation, an organization...

    Stark & Stark Opens Newtown, Pennsylvania Location

    Stark & Stark announced the relocation of its Yardley, Pennsylvania office to a new location in Newtown, PA. The new office is now open and...

    Joseph Lemkin, Esq. Named to ROI-NJ Influencers: Power List 2026 – Law

    Stark & Stark is proud to share that Joseph Lemkin, Esq., Shareholder, has been named to the 2026 Influencers: Power List in the Law category...

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Michael C. Ksiazek, Esq. Secure $1,000,000 Settlement in Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death Case

    Jeffrey A. Krawitz, Esq. and Michael C. Ksiazek, Esq. recently secured a $1,000,000 settlement in a medical malpractice wrongful death...

    Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. Secure $2,000,000 Settlement in Personal Injury Matter

    Joseph Cullen, Esq. and Nicole Durso, Esq. recently secured a $2,000,000 settlement in a personal injury matter involving a pedestrian who was struck...

    Stark & Stark Welcomes Susan L. Swatski, Esq. to the Firm

    Continuing in its mission to provide its clients innovative legal solutions to meet their needs, Stark & Stark PC, announced today that Susan L....

    Tim Duggan Wins Eminent Domain Challenge – Case Dismissed

    We are pleased to share that Tim Duggan of our Condemnation, Redevelopment, and Eminent Domain Group was successful in protecting the owner of a...

    James Creegan, Esq. Appointed to Board of The 200 Club of Mercer County

    It is our pleasure to announce that James Creegan, Esq. has been appointed to the Board of Directors of The 200 Club of Mercer County, an...