Sep 29, 2020, 5:55 am

Satisfying Due Diligence

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C 9601 et seq., as a method to require the cleanup of contaminated properties and to force certain parties to conduct and pay for the cleanup of contaminated sites. Significant amendments to CERCLA were added in the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986. To read more about CERCLA and Due Diligence, see the description below.
The following parties, often referred to as "potentially responsible parties" or "PRPs", are subject to CERCLA liability, as per 42 U.S.C. §9607 (a):
  • The present owner or operator of the contaminated facility.
  • Any person who owned or operated the facility at the time at which hazardous substances were disposed at the site.
  • Any person who arranges for the disposal, treatment, or transport of hazardous substances owned by or possessed by such person.
  • Any person who accepts hazardous substances for transfer to a disposal or treatment site selected by such person.

There are three statutory defenses to liability for PRPs. As per 42 U.S.C §9607(b), a PRP is not liable if the release of hazardous substances was caused by:

  • An act of God (e.g., hurricane, tornado)
  • An act of war.
  • An act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent and other than a person whose act occurs in connection with a contractual relationship. A defendant cannot rely on this "third party" defense unless the defendant (i) exercised due care with respect to the hazardous substance and (ii) took precautions to prevent the foreseeable actions or omissions or the third party. Due to the narrow scope of this defense, its principal effect is to provide a defense to an owner or operator who is the victim of a "midnight dumper".

The Innocent Landowner defense arises out of the statutory definition of "contractual relationship" referred to in the third party defense. Congress defined "contractual relationship" to include real estate transactions, and then provided that an owner of contaminated property can establish a defense to CERCLA liability if (i) the property was acquired after the hazardous substance was disposed there and (ii) at the time of acquisition, the owner "did not know and had no reason to know" that the hazardous substance was disposed on the property. Further, an owner can establish that he or she had "no reason to know" only if he or she conducted appropriate due diligence prior to the acquisition.

To establish that the defendant had no reason to know…the defendant must have undertaken, at the time of acquisition, all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership AND uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in an effort to minimize liability.

… From 42 U.S.C §9601(35)(B) (emphasis added)

According to CERCLA all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership must be undertaken to comply with the innocent landowner defense. As a party to a commercial real estate transaction it is imperative that the environmental due diligence adheres to both Statute 9601(35)(B) and ASTM Phase I ESA. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), which is a private not-for profit standards-writing organization, has developed a standard (Designation E 1527-00) for conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The Phase I ESA standards were written to establish good site assessment practices that satisfy the due diligence responsibilities of participants in commercial real estate transactions.

This practice is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the innocent landowner defense to CERCLA liability: that is, the practices that constitute "all appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership AND uses of the property consistent with good commercial or customary practice" as defined in 42 U.S.C.§9601(35)(B).

… From ASTM Phase I ESA Designation E 1527-00, ¶ 1.1 (emphasis added)

According to the ASTM (ASTM Designation E 1527-00, ¶ 7.3.4), standard historical sources include aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, property tax files, recorded land title records, minute topographical maps, street directories, building department records, and zoning and land use records.

Historical chains of title can reveal previous owners and historical uses of a property, but according to the ASTM it cannot be the sole historical source consulted. Though the ASTM standard prescribes many historical sources for determining previous uses of the property, directories, photographs, and maps do not provide the required information to identify a list of previous owners.

This exclusion by the ASTM has led to confusion by professionals in the environmental, financial, and real estate communities, incorrectly believing that historical title records can be eliminated as long as other historical sources of information have been utilized in the report. As a result of consultants’ recommendations of sources that do not include a chain of title, potentially responsible parties and details of particular ownership are not identified. Yet to satisfy due diligence and one of the qualifying requirements to the innocent landowner defense, both previous ownership and uses of the property must be identified as per both 42 U.S.C §9601(35)(B) and ASTM Phase I ESA standards (above).



The following links have been provided for reference purposes only. NETR Real Estate Research and Information (NETR) makes no claim as to the accuracy of the information provided within any hyperlinked website. The user of these hyperlinks understands that NETR has no control over this information, and that the information is subject to change. NETR shall incur no liability arising from any use or application of information obtained through these hyperlinks. NETR encourages all persons to browse the internet responsibly, and heed this and all future disclaimers that may be encountered.


ASTM Phase I ESA Designation E

United States Code (USC) Title 42, Chapter


[Return to Top]