Can a New York town pass a local 'right to farm' ordinance that requires every deed conveying property in the town to include a specific paragraph notifying buyers of farming activity?

Subject

Authority of a town to enact a local "right to farm" ordinance that would mandate addition of specific notice language to any deed conveying real property within the town.

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_96-49_pw.pdf

Plain-English summary

The Town of Whitehall in Washington County wanted to strengthen its local agricultural protections. The town had a "right to farm" law on the books, declaring a town policy of preserving farming activity, and now wanted to add an enforcement mechanism: every deed conveying real property within the town would be required to include a paragraph stating that policy. The town attorney asked whether the town could enact such an ordinance.

The AG said no. Conveyancing and recording requirements in New York are governed by Real Property Law §§ 290 et seq., a State statute that prescribes what documents must be recorded, how they must be acknowledged, and (in some cases) what additional documents must accompany them for recording. State law already includes one piece of farming-related disclosure: Real Property Law § 333-c requires a prospective grantor of real property located wholly or partly within an agricultural district (as defined in Agriculture and Markets Law § 300) to deliver a State-prescribed notice to the prospective grantee describing farming activities (noise, dust, odors) common in the district and stating the State's policy to encourage agricultural land.

But that disclosure is a State-mandated pre-conveyance notice, not a recording requirement. Nothing in the Real Property Law authorizes a municipality to add a town-specific paragraph to deeds, and § 333-c does not extend a municipality's authority into the deed itself.

The AG cited an earlier opinion, Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 92-55, for the conclusion that local laws dealing with real property recording requirements "do[] not appear to be within the scope of home rule authority of a local government." A 1960 informal opinion had similarly held that Real Property Law provisions governing conveyancing and recording are matters of State concern not subject to local regulation. So neither State authorization nor home rule supplies a basis, and the town's ordinance would be invalid.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What is a "right to farm" law?
A right-to-farm law is local or state legislation declaring a public policy in favor of preserving farming activity, typically in the face of nuisance challenges from new neighbors. New York's State-level right-to-farm framework lives in Agriculture and Markets Law Articles 25-AA and 25-AAA, which authorize agricultural districts, limit nuisance suits against farms operating in good agricultural practices, and require pre-conveyance disclosures under Real Property Law § 333-c.

Why can't a town add its own deed-language requirement on top of State law?
Because the State has occupied the field of conveyancing and recording. Real Property Law §§ 290 et seq. specify what must go in deeds and how they must be presented for recording. A local rule layering on additional content would intrude into a State-controlled area. The AG and the courts have consistently treated conveyancing and recording as matters of State concern not subject to local supplementation through home rule.

Did the town have any alternative way to spread the policy?
The State scheme already gives the town some help. Real Property Law § 333-c requires the State-prescribed agricultural-district disclosure for property within an agricultural district. If the town wants to publicize its right-to-farm policy more broadly, it can do so through community education, signs, websites, and notice on its building permits and zoning paperwork. Building it into the deed itself, however, requires State legislative action.

Has the law on this changed since 1996?
The opinion did not commit to permanence; the AG simply read the 1996 statutory landscape. The Currency note above flags that subsequent legislative or judicial developments may have shifted the analysis. As of 1996, the answer was no.

What about a town's home rule authority generally?
Towns and other local governments have broad authority under Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 to enact local laws on listed subjects, including their property, affairs, and government, and on a wide array of welfare and police-power topics. But the home rule authority is not unlimited. Conveyancing and recording of real property fall outside the typical home rule subjects because they involve a State-wide system of property titles maintained through county clerks under State law.

Background and statutory framework

New York's right-to-farm framework dates to 1971, with the original Agricultural Districts Law (Agriculture and Markets Law Article 25-AA) and successive amendments. Section 300 declares the State's policy of preserving and protecting farmland; an agricultural district is a designated geographic area where the policy receives heightened protection. Real Property Law § 333-c was added later as a disclosure mechanism: when property in or near an agricultural district changes hands, the State requires the seller to give the buyer a notice describing what farming activities the buyer may encounter.

Real Property Law §§ 290 et seq. is the recording statute. Section 291 (the core recording provision) makes any conveyance recordable; § 291-b sets out the formal requirements for acknowledgment; later sections deal with priority, lis pendens, and the like. The framework is uniform across the State.

Earlier AG opinions have consistently treated recording and conveyancing as outside the home rule space. Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 92-55 and Op Atty Gen (Inf) 115 (1960) both held that local laws cannot modify the State recording requirements. The 1996 opinion fit cleanly into that line.

Citations

• Agriculture and Markets Law § 300 (agricultural districts policy)
• Municipal Home Rule Law § 10 (subjects of local law authority)
• Real Property Law §§ 290 et seq. (recording requirements)
• Real Property Law § 333-c (agricultural district pre-conveyance notice)
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 92-55 (local laws on real property recording outside home rule)
• 1960 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 115

Original opinion text

AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS LAW § 300; MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW § 10;
REAL PROPERTY LAW §§ 290, et seq., 333-c.
The town is not authorized to adopt a law requiring the addition of specific language to any deed to be
recorded in the Washington County Clerk's Office.
December 31, 1996

Michael S. Martin, Esq.
Town Attorney
Town of Whitehall
P. O. Box 60
Whitehall, NY 12887

Informal Opinion
No. 96-49

Dear Mr. Martin:
You have asked whether the Town of Whitehall may adopt an ordinance to implement its "right to farm"
law that would require specific language to be added to any deed conveying real property located in the
town. The language would state the public policy to protect the occupation of farming.
Recording requirements for conveyances of real property are set forth in Real Property Law §§ 290, et
seq. Those provisions govern which documents must be recorded, how they must be certified or
acknowledged, and, in some cases, what additional documents must be presented for recording. Real
Property Law § 333-c provides that prior to the sale, purchase or exchange of real property located
wholly or partly within an agricultural district, as defined in the Agriculture and Markets Law, the
prospective grantor is to deliver to the prospective grantee a notice regarding the farm activities that
occur within the district and stating that the State and community policy is to protect and encourage the
development of agricultural land. This gives prospective purchasers notice that farming activities that
cause noise, dust and odors may accompany the purchase of property in such districts and advances the
State policy to conserve, protect and encourage the development of agricultural land for the production
of food and other products and as ecological resources. See, Agriculture and Markets Law § 300; Real
Property Law § 333-c.
The incorporation of "right to farm" language in the deed is not authorized by the above provisions. Nor,
in our view, can the addition of such language be required by local law. Local governments are
authorized to enact and amend local laws that are consistent with the Constitution and general State
laws regarding subjects enumerated in Municipal Home Rule Law § 10. In a prior opinion, we concluded
that a local law dealing with real property recording requirements "does not appear to be within the
scope of home rule authority of a local government". Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 92-55. See also, 1960 Op
Atty Gen (Inf) 115 (Real Property Law provisions governing conveyancing and recording relate to
matters of State concern which are not subject to regulation by local law). Therefore, the modification of
deed requirements is not authorized by State or local law.
We conclude that the town is not authorized to adopt a law requiring the addition of specific language to
any deed recorded in the Washington County Clerk's Office.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government.
This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office.
Very truly yours,

SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General