Two houses on one parcel: Second is an "accessory structure," pursuing legal

Arturo Muñoz · 2026-09-15T11:04:53-07:00

Anyone dealt with two houses on one lot where the second one isn't "legal"?Bought a place at a county auction in Allegheny County PA (Collier Twp) that has two separate houses on one lot, big parcel, about half an acre, each with its own driveway/access. The back house isn't a shed or a garage, it's an actual finished house, looks like people lived in it for years.Problem is the township only recognizes one. They're calling the back house an "accessory structure" no certificate of occupancy, no separate address, and they told me they don't even have the original occupancy records. Earliest zoning ordinance they have on file is from 1952. Their answer was basically if I want it recognized as a legal nonconforming use I have to go in front of the Zoning Hearing Board (they pointed me to section 2402).So before I go down that road I'm trying to figure out what I'm walking into. A few things I'm wondering:Has anyone actually gotten a second dwelling on one lot approved as legal nonconforming through a ZHB? Did it work out or did they shoot you down?If the township has no occupancy records, how did you prove the thing was there and being used before the zoning kicked in? Old aerials, utility/meter history, neighbors signing something?Did neighbors show up and fight it? That's kind of my worry.And honestly, ballpark, what did it run you and how long did it drag out?Not touching anything on the back house until this is sorted, just trying to learn from people who've been through it. Appreciate any input.

Jay TolugantiPro Member

Investor · Clearwater, FL · Member since 2025 · 214 posts · 73 votes

5d

Not exact scenario but similar. Bought a parcel with two houses. County industed that we need to rezone as legal non confirmality expires after 12 months. Still working with Surveyor to split the lot.

1 Reply

Arturo Muñoz
OP
Rental Property Investor · Asunción, Paraguay · Member since 2026 · 13 posts · 3 votes
5d
Hey Jay, appreciate you jumping in, that's basically my exact situation. Two houses on one lot and the township is telling me I either go in front of the Zoning Hearing Board to get the second one recognized, or look at splitting the lot.
Since you're further along, a few questions on your split:
Did the subdivision let you skip the ZHB entirely, or did you still have to go before them anyway?
How's it going with the surveyor? Any rough idea on cost and how long the split takes start to finish?
And that 12-month expiration you mentioned: Did that put a real clock on you, or was it more of a heads up from the county?
My lot's a good size and honestly looks like it'd split down the middle pretty cleanly, so the subdivision route is appealing if it dodges the whole hearing process. Curious how it's playing out for you.
0 Reply
Jay TolugantiPro Member
Investor · Clearwater, FL · Member since 2025 · 214 posts · 73 votes
5d
@Arturo Muñoz mine is still in process. I thought the road fromtage has enough width to split. But looks like we were short of few feet. So, the surveyour is applealing for varience. Thats the status for now. Since we are not asking for rezoning, no need to go to the zoning meeting. But I am still waiting for them to approve.
1 Reply
Arturo Muñoz
OP
Rental Property Investor · Asunción, Paraguay · Member since 2026 · 13 posts · 3 votes
4d
Really appreciate you sharing that, super helpful. The frontage is exactly my worry, mine looks like it splits clean on the map but who knows if it hits the minimum until a surveyor measures it. Good to know you skip the zoning meeting if you're not rezoning, that makes the split route way more appealing.
Keep me posted on the variance. Really hope it goes your way!
0 Reply

Hampton Rogers

Real Estate Consultant · Chattanooga TN · Member since 2026 · 19 posts · 7 votes

2d

Arturo, the missing occupancy records are what make this especially interesting. Before the hearing, I’d be trying to build as complete a factual timeline as possible for the second dwelling — historic aerials, assessment records, utility/meter history, permits, old property records and anything else that establishes when the structure existed and how it was being used.

I’d also want to know exactly what records the township has actually searched versus what simply isn’t in their current system.

Have they given you anything in writing about the history of the second structure, or only told you that they don’t have the original occupancy records?

1 Reply

Arturo Muñoz
OP
Rental Property Investor · Asunción, Paraguay · Member since 2026 · 13 posts · 3 votes
2d
Really appreciate this, and it lines up with where I'm leaning now. A couple people in this thread pushed me toward just subdividing the lot instead of fighting the nonconforming-use angle, and the more I look at it the cleaner it seems, no hearing, no having to prove historical use, each structure just sits on its own conforming lot.
To your question though, yeah I got it in writing. I filed a Right-to-Know, and that's where the "no occupancy records" and "accessory structure, no CO" language comes from, so it's documented, not just verbal.
Your searched-versus-not-in-system point still holds on the split path too, since I'll want the lot history clean either way. Have you seen the subdivision route work in a case like this, or hit reasons it doesn't?
0 Reply

Hampton Rogers

Real Estate Consultant · Chattanooga TN · Member since 2026 · 19 posts · 7 votes

2d

Arturo, that makes sense. If subdivision gets you to the same practical outcome without having to prove historical nonconforming use, I can see why that path is getting more attractive.

The things I’d want to verify before leaning too hard into it are the parcel-level requirements: minimum lot size, frontage, setbacks, access, utilities/sewer, easements, and whether each resulting lot can independently support the existing structure on it. I’d also want the municipality to confirm that the split itself doesn’t create a new zoning or permitting problem.

Given what you already uncovered through the Right-to-Know request, I’d probably keep building that paper trail either way.

I haven’t seen the specific subdivision rules for your township, so I wouldn’t tell you yet that it’s the cleaner answer. But if you can split the parcel cleanly and each house then sits on a compliant lot, that seems like a very different problem than trying to prove historic legal use.

Have you already checked the minimum lot/frontage requirements for a subdivision there?

1 Reply

Arturo Muñoz
OP
Rental Property Investor · Asunción, Paraguay · Member since 2026 · 13 posts · 3 votes
2d
Good list, and that's exactly the level I'm treating it at. Honest answer to your question: I haven't pulled the exact ordinance minimums yet, that's what I've got a surveyor lining up to confirm, lot area, frontage, setbacks, and whether each split lot independently supports its house.
What's making me optimistic but not certain: the parcel is about 20k sq ft and the surrounding lots are around 10k, so splitting it down the middle would land each lot right in line with the neighborhood. And the two houses already front different streets, one on Prestley, one on Dorothy, so the access piece looks handled by the layout rather than an easement or flag lot.
You're right not to call it clean until the numbers are confirmed though. I'm keeping the Right-to-Know paper trail either way, since the lot history matters no matter which route I take. Once the surveyor comes back with the parcel-level read I'll know if it's really the simpler path or if there's a catch.
0 Reply

Two houses on one parcel: Second is an "accessory structure," pursuing legal

Two houses on one parcel: Second is an "accessory structure," pursuing legal

Most Popular Reply

8 Replies