Free Pennsylvania Notice to Enter

This Pennsylvania Notice to Enter gives a tenant clear written notice before the landlord enters the rental unit. Pennsylvania has no statewide entry statute – the Landlord and Tenant Act is silent on entry – so access is governed by the lease and the covenant of quiet enjoyment; the accepted standard is 24 hours of written notice at reasonable hours. See our tenant screening laws by state hub and how to screen tenants guide to keep your Pennsylvania tenancies documented from the start.

Complete the fields below to generate a Pennsylvania Notice to Enter. Pennsylvania sets no statewide notice period, so the lease controls – give reasonable written notice, with 24 hours the accepted standard, at reasonable hours, and deliver it per the lease. The form records the date, time window, purpose, the persons entering, and how the notice is delivered.

Watch: Pennsylvania Notice to Enter explained

▶ Watch overview

Pennsylvania is one of the states with no statewide entry statute. The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, codified at 68 P.S. sections 250.101 through 250.602 – the law that governs most of the landlord-tenant relationship in the Commonwealth – does not address landlord entry at all. It sets no notice period, lists no permitted purposes, and defines no reasonable hours, the way the landlord-tenant acts of most other states do. That silence is not an accident a careful reader should try to fill in; it is a deliberate feature of Pennsylvania law, which leaves entry to the agreement between the parties and to the background rules of the common law.

Because the statute books are silent, the lease is the controlling document. Whatever the entry clause says about notice and access is what binds both sides. Most Pennsylvania leases include a right-of-entry clause, and a well-drafted one states the notice period – 24 hours is typical – the permitted reasons for entry, and the hours during which the landlord may come in. If the lease grants that right and the landlord follows its terms, entry is authorized. If the lease grants no entry right at all, the tenant who signed for possession is entitled to control who comes into the home and may refuse entry except in a genuine emergency, because possession for the term of the lease is exactly what Pennsylvania law protects.

The background principle that fills the statutory gap is the covenant of quiet enjoyment, which Pennsylvania implies into every lease. The Supreme Court confirmed in Kohl v. PNC Bank, N.A., 590 Pa. 151 (2006), that this covenant is part of every Pennsylvania tenancy, and the Superior Court in Pollock v. Morelli, 245 Pa. Super. 388 (1976), applied it to a landlord whose conduct interfered with the tenant’s beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises. The practical meaning is simple: even with no entry statute, a landlord cannot enter so unreasonably or so often that the entries interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the home, because doing so breaches a promise the law reads into the lease itself.

No Pennsylvania city sets a separate entry-notice rule, and that includes Philadelphia. Philadelphia has broad tenant protections generally – its Fair Practices Ordinance is an anti-discrimination law – but it does not set an entry-notice period, and there is no Philadelphia entry ordinance. Statewide and citywide, the 24-hour figure is custom and a lease term, not a local code, so entry everywhere in the Commonwealth comes back to the lease and the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The one clear exception everywhere is a genuine emergency: if there is a fire, a flood, a burst pipe, or another immediate threat to life or property, a landlord may enter at once without advance notice – just document the emergency and what was done. The sections that follow walk through the purposes that justify entry, the timing that keeps an entry reasonable, how the emergency exception works, how showings and abandonment are handled, what the lease can and cannot do, and – most important for a landlord managing risk – exactly what remedies a Pennsylvania tenant has if entry goes wrong.

Even though Pennsylvania does not list permitted purposes by statute, a workable list comes straight from the kinds of property-management tasks that courts and leases treat as legitimate. The unifying test is simple: the landlord must have a real, property-management reason to be inside the unit, not a pretext for checking up on or pressuring the tenant. When the reason is genuine and the notice is reasonable, entry is rarely controversial.

Repairs and maintenance are the most common reason a landlord needs access. This includes responding to a tenant’s repair request, performing scheduled upkeep, and addressing problems the landlord is obligated to fix to keep the unit in habitable condition. Inspections – annual condition checks, move-out walkthroughs, and pre-renewal assessments – are equally routine, and a clear notice describing the inspection keeps it from feeling intrusive.

Showings are a frequent flashpoint. A landlord may need to show the unit to a prospective tenant near the end of a lease, to a prospective buyer if the property is on the market, or to a lender or appraiser during a refinance. Each of these is a legitimate purpose, but each also brings strangers into the tenant’s home, so generous notice and reasonable scheduling matter most here.

Building services and safety work round out the list: pest control treatment, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. Safety-device testing in particular protects both sides, and most tenants welcome it when it is scheduled with notice. Across all of these purposes, the form lets the landlord state the exact reason, describe the work, and list everyone who will enter, which is the single most effective way to turn a potentially contested entry into a routine, documented visit.

It is worth being explicit about what is not a legitimate purpose, because that is where landlords get into trouble. Entering to check whether the tenant is keeping the unit “well enough” without any maintenance reason, to look for lease violations on a hunch, to confront a tenant over a dispute, or simply to remind a tenant who is in control of the property are not property-management purposes; they are the kind of pretextual entries that look like harassment and that interfere with the tenant’s quiet enjoyment. The discipline of writing down the purpose on a notice is itself a useful filter: if a landlord cannot articulate a concrete, legitimate reason for the visit on paper, that is a strong signal the entry should not happen at all. A purpose that reads “inspect HVAC condenser and replace filter” is defensible; a purpose that reads “check on tenant” is not.

Some purposes also carry their own follow-on courtesies. A repair that will shut off water or power should say so, so the tenant can plan around it. A pest-control treatment that requires the tenant to clear cabinets or keep pets out for a period should spell out those steps in advance. A move-out inspection is far smoother when the tenant is invited to attend, because a jointly observed walkthrough heads off later disputes about the unit’s condition. Tying each legitimate purpose to its practical logistics, right there in the notice, is what separates a professional operation from one that generates friction and complaints.

With no statutory notice period, the word that does the real work in Pennsylvania is reasonable. A landlord who gives reasonable notice and enters at reasonable hours for a legitimate purpose is on solid ground; a landlord who gives little or no notice, or who shows up at odd hours, invites a dispute even if the underlying reason for entry was valid. Reasonableness is judged on the facts, but a few practical benchmarks make it concrete.

On notice, 24 hours of advance, written notice is the widely accepted standard and the figure most Pennsylvania leases adopt. It is enough time for a tenant to prepare, secure pets, or raise a scheduling conflict, while still letting a landlord manage the property efficiently. Giving notice in writing – rather than a verbal heads-up – matters because it creates the dated record that proves the notice was reasonable if the entry is ever questioned, and it is exactly the kind of record that defeats a quiet-enjoyment complaint.

On hours, “reasonable” generally means normal daytime business hours, commonly understood as roughly 8am to 6pm on weekdays. Entry early in the morning, late at night, or on weekends is harder to defend as reasonable unless the tenant has agreed to it or an emergency requires it. Matching the entry to the tenant’s schedule where practical, and offering a window rather than a single rigid time, both reinforce that the landlord is acting reasonably.

Reasonableness also has a frequency dimension. A single, well-noticed entry to make a repair is plainly reasonable. A pattern of frequent entries, even with notice, can cross the line into harassment and breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment, because at some point the sheer volume of intrusions interferes with the tenant’s possession regardless of how politely each one is announced. The safe practice is to consolidate work, enter no more often than the task genuinely requires, and document each visit.

How the notice is delivered feeds directly into whether it is reasonable. A notice the tenant never actually receives gives the landlord little protection, even if it was technically “sent.” Personal delivery to the tenant is the strongest method, because it is hard to dispute. Posting on the door, especially when paired with an email or text, is a practical and widely used approach. Email or text alone is reasonable where the lease allows electronic notice and the tenant routinely uses that channel. Certified mail creates an excellent paper trail but is slow, so it suits situations where the landlord has time to plan. Whatever the method, the goal is the same: choose the channel most likely to reach this particular tenant, and keep proof that you used it.

Finally, reasonableness is a two-way street, and a cooperative tenant earns flexibility. If a landlord gives fair notice and the tenant proposes a slightly different time that works better for the household, accommodating that request both reflects good faith and makes the eventual entry smoother. Conversely, a tenant who unreasonably stonewalls every properly noticed, legitimate entry is not exercising a right so much as obstructing the landlord’s authorized access, and a documented trail of reasonable notices is exactly what the landlord would rely on if the obstruction ever had to be addressed. Reasonable notice protects the landlord precisely because it shifts the burden: once fair notice for a legitimate purpose is on the record, an entry dispute becomes the tenant’s problem to justify, not the landlord’s.

The clearest situation in which a Pennsylvania landlord may enter without advance notice is a genuine emergency. A fire, a flood, a gas leak, a burst pipe, or any other immediate threat to life, safety, or the property itself justifies immediate entry, because waiting to give notice could turn a containable problem into a catastrophe. The emergency exception is not a loophole for routine access; it applies only when prompt entry is genuinely necessary to prevent or limit harm.

It is important to describe this exception accurately. The emergency right of entry in Pennsylvania is grounded in the lease and the common law, not in any Pennsylvania statute, and a notice or template should never claim that immediate emergency entry is permitted “as allowed by Pennsylvania statute,” because no such statute exists. The right flows from the basic principle that a possessor of property may act to prevent imminent harm and from the entry terms most leases include. Stating it as a statutory power is both inaccurate and the kind of overstatement that undermines a landlord’s credibility if a dispute reaches a courtroom.

Because an emergency entry happens without the usual notice, documentation is the landlord’s protection. Record the date and time, the nature of the emergency, what was found on entering, what was done, and who entered, and keep any photographs. Notify the tenant promptly afterward, explaining what happened and why immediate entry was necessary. Good after-the-fact documentation converts an unannounced entry from a potential trespass claim into an obviously justified emergency response.

It helps to draw a bright line between a true emergency and mere urgency. A burst pipe actively flooding the unit, a gas smell, a fire alarm, or a report of a medical crisis behind a locked door are emergencies that justify immediate entry, because every minute of delay risks serious harm to people or the building. A lease violation the landlord is eager to confront, a repair the tenant has been slow to schedule, or a desire to get ahead of a deadline are urgent to the landlord but are not emergencies, and using the emergency label to cover them is exactly the kind of overreach that turns an entry into a trespass. The honest test is whether waiting the ordinary notice period would risk real harm; if it would not, it is not an emergency, and the landlord should give notice.

Scope matters too. An emergency justifies the entry needed to address the emergency, not a general search of the unit. A landlord who enters to stop a flood should deal with the water and leave, not take the opportunity to inspect the tenant’s belongings or look for other, unconnected problems. An emergency entry that balloons into a broader, unconnected search can lose its protection and revert to an ordinary unauthorized entry, exposing the landlord to a trespass claim under Kopka for the part of the entry that exceeded the emergency. Keeping the response proportionate to the emergency – in and out, focused on the hazard, documented – is what keeps the exception clean.

Showings deserve their own treatment because they put the landlord’s legitimate business needs in the sharpest tension with the tenant’s right to be left in peaceful possession. When a lease is ending, the landlord may reasonably need to show the unit to prospective tenants so the unit does not sit vacant. When the property is for sale, the landlord may need to show it to prospective buyers, and a buyer’s lender or appraiser may need access as well. All of these are legitimate purposes, but every one of them brings outsiders into an occupied home.

The protection for both sides is, again, the lease plus reasonable notice. A well-drafted Pennsylvania lease will say whether and how the landlord may conduct showings near the end of the term, and a landlord should follow that clause to the letter. Where the lease addresses showings, deviating from its terms is a contract breach; where it is silent, the landlord should give the same reasonable, written notice that applies to any other entry and should be especially generous, because showings tend to cluster and to involve strangers. A burst of poorly noticed showings is one of the easiest ways to convert a routine marketing period into a quiet-enjoyment complaint.

Practical courtesy goes a long way during a sale or re-rental. Group showings into defined windows rather than scattering them, give the tenant as much lead time as possible, and offer a way to reschedule around the tenant’s commitments. A tenant who feels respected during a marketing period is far less likely to refuse access or to claim harassment, and the landlord keeps the dated notices that show every showing was properly announced.

Entry rules assume the tenant is still in possession. When a tenant abandons the unit or surrenders it, the possessory interest that entry law protects begins to dissolve, and the landlord’s ability to enter changes. Abandonment, however, is a conclusion a landlord should reach carefully, because acting on a mistaken belief that a tenant has left can itself create liability.

Abandonment generally requires both that the tenant has actually left the premises and that the tenant intends not to return – shown by facts such as removed belongings, disconnected utilities, unpaid rent, and no response to contact. A tenant who is merely traveling, hospitalized, or temporarily away has not abandoned the unit, and treating an occupied home as abandoned can expose the landlord to a trespass claim under Kopka or a wrongful-eviction claim. Surrender is the cleaner case: the tenant affirmatively gives the unit back, by returning keys or by agreement, which ends the tenancy and the tenant’s possessory rights.

The safe approach is to confirm abandonment before relying on it. Document the indicators, attempt to reach the tenant, and, when the situation is genuinely ambiguous, use the legal process rather than self-help, because Pennsylvania – like most states – disfavors a landlord who takes possession by self-help instead of through the courts. Until the landlord is confident the tenant has surrendered or abandoned possession, the ordinary entry rules – lease authority plus reasonable notice, with emergencies excepted – continue to apply, and a notice of entry remains the right tool for any access the landlord needs.

Because Pennsylvania leaves entry to the agreement of the parties, the lease can shape entry rights in ways a statute-based state cannot. The lease is the controlling document, and within broad limits the parties can define the notice period, the permitted purposes, the hours of entry, and the method of delivering notice. A landlord and tenant can agree to more notice than the 24-hour benchmark or, in principle, to less, and they can spell out exactly how showings, inspections, and emergencies are handled.

A tenant’s consent also matters in real time. Even where the lease is silent or restrictive, a tenant who agrees to a specific entry has waived any objection to that entry. The cleanest practice is to memorialize consent – a text or email confirming the date, time, and purpose – so that an agreed-upon visit cannot later be recast as an intrusion. Standing consent for routine maintenance can be built into the lease, and one-off consent can be documented as it is given.

There is a limit, however, that landlords should not lose sight of. A lease clause that purports to let the landlord enter at any time without notice may be enforceable on its face as a matter of contract, but it cannot be used as a shield for harassment. A landlord who relies on a broad no-notice clause to enter repeatedly, at unreasonable hours, or to pressure a tenant is not merely exercising a contract right; that conduct can breach the covenant of quiet enjoyment or, if it makes the home untenantable, support a constructive-eviction claim, regardless of what the clause says. In other words, a permissive clause expands the landlord’s ordinary access; it does not license abuse.

For that reason, the smarter drafting choice is usually a clause that is clear rather than maximal. A clause that grants entry on 24 hours’ notice, for stated purposes, at reasonable hours, with an emergency carve-out, gives the landlord everything a normal operation needs while signaling good faith to a court. An “any time, no notice” clause buys very little real-world freedom – the quiet-enjoyment limit caps it anyway – and it reads badly if the tenancy ever turns adversarial, because it looks like a landlord who wanted unchecked access to someone else’s home. A balanced clause is both more enforceable in spirit and more persuasive evidence that the landlord respected the tenant’s possession.

Waiver also runs in both directions over the course of a tenancy. A landlord who has consistently honored a 24-hour notice practice, even where the lease would permit less, sets an expectation that a sudden no-notice entry will violate, and a tenant who has freely allowed routine maintenance access cannot easily recast a long-accepted practice as a trespass. The practical advice is to be consistent and to put the important agreements in writing – the lease clause for the standing rules, and a quick text or email for any one-off variation – so that neither side is later surprised by a course of dealing it did not expect.

This is the heart of Pennsylvania entry law and the part most often gotten wrong. Because Pennsylvania has no entry statute, a tenant’s remedies for an unlawful or excessive entry come from the common law and from contract, and they are measured by actual damages, not by any statutory entry penalty. A landlord who understands these remedies will see immediately why a clear lease clause and reasonable notice are not just good manners but genuine risk management. The remedies below are presented roughly in the order a Pennsylvania tenant in possession would consider them.

Common-law trespass – the primary theory

Trespass is the main remedy. A landlord who enters a unit the tenant lawfully possesses without a contractual right of reentry and without legal process is liable to the tenant in trespass. In Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co., 371 Pa. 444, 91 A.2d 232 (1952), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court applied the Restatement of Torts trespass framework – an intentional entry on land in another’s possession is a trespass, and possession, not title, founds the action. That is exactly why a tenant, who holds possession during the lease term, can sue a landlord, who holds title, for entering without the right to do so. The remedy is the tenant’s actual damages flowing from the unauthorized entry, and the claim does not require proof of any statutory violation – just an intentional, unauthorized entry on the possessed premises.

Breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment

Pennsylvania implies a covenant of quiet enjoyment into every lease, and it is a real entry remedy here, not the dead letter it has become in some other states. The Supreme Court confirmed the covenant in Kohl v. PNC Bank, N.A., 590 Pa. 151 (2006), and the Superior Court in Pollock v. Morelli, 245 Pa. Super. 388 (1976), applied it to a landlord whose conduct interfered with the tenant’s beneficial enjoyment of the leased premises. A landlord whose entries substantially interfere with the tenant’s use and enjoyment of the home – repeated no-notice intrusions, entries that disrupt the tenant’s peace, or access that ignores the agreed terms – can breach this covenant and owe the tenant damages. This is one of the things that makes Pennsylvania different from states where quiet enjoyment has narrowed to a title concept: here it remains a live theory for over-entry.

Constructive eviction

If a landlord’s entry conduct goes so far that it renders the premises untenantable, the tenant may treat it as a constructive eviction. The critical condition, drawn from the Pollock line, is that the tenant must actually vacate the premises – abandoning them within a reasonable time – to claim it; a tenant who stays put is treated as having waived the constructive eviction. A tenant who does vacate is relieved of the obligation to pay further rent. Constructive eviction is therefore a powerful but demanding remedy: it ends the lease and the rent obligation, but only for a tenant willing to leave the home, and it is the natural escalation of a serious, sustained breach of quiet enjoyment.

Constructive eviction often arrives bundled with other theories. The same course of conduct that makes a home untenantable – repeated unannounced entries, intrusions that destroy any sense of privacy, or entries that interfere with the tenant’s basic use of the unit – can simultaneously be a trespass, a breach of quiet enjoyment, and a privacy intrusion. A tenant who is driven out can therefore claim constructive eviction to escape the rent obligation while also seeking damages in trespass or for the entries themselves. For a landlord, the lesson is that an escalating pattern of bad entries does not just risk one claim; it can ripen several at once, and the constructive-eviction branch is the one that severs the rent stream entirely.

Intrusion upon seclusion – the privacy tort

For entries that are intentional, highly offensive, and usually repeated, a tenant may also have a privacy claim for intrusion upon seclusion. Pennsylvania recognizes that tort, adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652B formulation, in Harris by Harris v. Easton Publishing Co., 335 Pa. Super. 141, 484 A.2d 1378 (1984) – a decision of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (some databases mislabel it as a Supreme Court case, but it is the Superior Court). The tort targets the most egregious conduct – a landlord who repeatedly invades the privacy of the home in a way a reasonable person would find highly offensive – and it can coexist with a trespass claim and a quiet-enjoyment claim arising from the same entries.

Breach of the lease

Where the lease sets the terms of entry – the notice period, the permitted purposes, the hours – a landlord who violates those terms has simply breached the contract. This is the most straightforward theory of all, because it does not require proving a tort; it requires only showing that the lease said one thing about entry and the landlord did another. A tenant can raise the breach as a defense in other disputes and can pursue contract damages that flow from it. For a landlord, this is the easiest claim to avoid: follow the lease.

The contract theory has a useful flip side for landlords. A lease that clearly authorizes entry, on stated notice and for stated purposes, is not just a restriction on the landlord; it is the landlord’s authority to enter in the first place. When the landlord follows that clause to the letter, the contract that a tenant might otherwise invoke as a sword becomes the landlord’s shield, because the entry was exactly what both parties agreed to. This is why investing a few careful sentences in the lease’s right-of-entry clause pays for itself many times over: a precise clause both narrows the tenant’s ability to claim breach and documents the landlord’s right to be there.

Injunctive relief

When the problem is not a single past entry but a pattern of continuing or threatened unlawful entries, a tenant in possession can ask a court of equity for an injunction to stop them. Under Pa.R.C.P. 1531 and the equity rules that follow it, a court may enjoin a threatened or continuing wrong where the legal remedy is inadequate and the harm is irreparable – and a stream of future intrusions is precisely the kind of ongoing harm that money damages after the fact cannot fully cure. An injunction does not undo past entries, but it can put a stop to a landlord who keeps coming back, which is often what a tenant most needs.

A note on retaliation – and why it is narrow in Pennsylvania. Unlike states with broad anti-retaliation statutes, Pennsylvania has none. The only retaliation provision in the Landlord and Tenant Act is 68 P.S. § 250.205, and it is narrow: it bars a landlord from terminating or refusing to renew a lease solely because the tenant participated in a tenant organization. It does not reach entry, repair requests, or code-enforcement complaints, and it creates no entry penalty. So a Pennsylvania landlord should not be told that ordinary over-entry triggers a statutory retaliation claim, because it does not. Retaliation in Pennsylvania is a tenant-organizing rule, separate from entry, and it does not expand the entry remedies, which remain the common-law and contract theories above.

Pennsylvania entry law is not found in a single code section. It is assembled from the lease, a handful of common-law doctrines, and a few statutes and rules that frame the landlord-tenant relationship and the remedies a tenant in possession can pursue. The table below collects the authorities that actually govern entry and the consequences of getting it wrong, so a landlord can see at a glance that the real exposure is common-law and contractual, not a statutory entry penalty. The single most important entry on the list is the first one: there is no Pennsylvania entry statute, so the lease does the work a statute would do in most other states.

Read together, these authorities tell a consistent story. Pennsylvania chose not to legislate landlord entry, so it left the subject to the agreement the parties signed and to the old tort, contract, and equity rules that protect anyone in lawful possession of property. A landlord who drafts a clear entry clause, gives reasonable notice, and confines entry to legitimate purposes is operating squarely inside every one of these authorities. A landlord who enters without a contractual right, at unreasonable hours, or to pressure a tenant steps outside the lease and into the reach of trespass under Kopka, the quiet-enjoyment covenant confirmed in Kohl and applied in Pollock, the privacy tort recognized in Harris, and – where the conduct is continuing – an injunction under Pa.R.C.P. 1531.

A word on how to use this reference responsibly. The cases and code sections here are the genuine load-bearing authorities for Pennsylvania entry disputes, and they are cited because they are real and on point – the trespass framework of Kopka v. Bell Telephone, the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in Kohl v. PNC Bank, the landlord-interference and abandonment standard of Pollock v. Morelli, the intrusion-upon-seclusion holding in Harris (a Superior Court decision, not a Supreme Court one, despite the way some databases label it), the equity power in Pa.R.C.P. 1531, and the deliberately narrow retaliation provision in 68 P.S. section 250.205. Just as important is what is deliberately absent: there is no general Pennsylvania entry statute to cite, no statutory damages provision for unlawful entry, and no broad anti-retaliation statute that turns ordinary over-entry into a statutory penalty. Any template that fills those gaps with invented authority – a fictional notice statute, a made-up entry penalty, or an overstated retaliation rule – is not making the page stronger; it is making it wrong. This notice is built to stay on the right side of that line, and a landlord or attorney can verify each authority above against the published statutes and opinions.

None of this is a substitute for advice on a specific situation. The authorities here describe the general shape of Pennsylvania entry law, but the outcome of any actual dispute turns on the exact lease language, the facts of the entries, and how a particular court reads them. The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General landlord-tenant resources are a good free starting point for both sides, and a qualified Pennsylvania landlord-tenant attorney is the right resource when a real conflict is on the table. Used alongside disciplined, well-documented notice, this form gives a Pennsylvania landlord a clean, defensible record for every entry – which is the most reliable protection the lease and the common law actually allow.

A Pennsylvania Notice to Enter is the written notice a landlord or property manager gives a tenant before entering the rental unit. Pennsylvania is unusual: its Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951, codified at 68 P.S. sections 250.101 through 250.602, is silent on entry, and the Commonwealth has never enacted a separate statute setting a notice period. There is no state-law number to satisfy – but that does not mean a landlord can walk in unannounced. Entry is governed by the lease and by the tenant’s common-law covenant of quiet enjoyment, and giving clear, reasonable notice is both the professional standard and the best protection against a dispute.

Because the lease controls, the first step is always to read the entry clause – the lease is the controlling document in Pennsylvania, and it is the landlord’s best protection. A typical Pennsylvania lease grants the landlord a right of entry for repairs, inspections, showings, and similar legitimate purposes, and sets a notice period – 24 hours is the most common. If the lease specifies a period or a delivery method, follow it exactly; a landlord who ignores the lease’s own terms undercuts the very document that authorizes entry. Where the lease is silent, the widely accepted, defensible default is 24 hours of written notice at reasonable hours, even though no Pennsylvania statute mandates that number.

What counts as a legitimate purpose is broad: repair and maintenance work, annual or move-out inspections, showing the unit to a prospective tenant, buyer, lender, or appraiser, pest control, servicing heating and cooling systems, and testing smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. This form lets you state the exact purpose, describe the work, list who will enter, and note whether the tenant’s presence is requested or required. Spelling out who will be in the home, and how pets should be handled, removes most of the friction that makes tenants resist access. Because Pennsylvania does not list permitted purposes by statute, this list is drawn from the property-management tasks that leases and courts treat as legitimate, and the unifying test is whether the landlord has a genuine reason to be inside the unit rather than a pretext for checking up on the tenant.

It is worth being precise about local law, because Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, has no statutory or local entry-notice rule. Philadelphia has broad tenant protections generally – its Fair Practices Ordinance is an anti-discrimination law – but it does not set an entry-notice period, and no Pennsylvania city has an entry ordinance. So the 24-hour figure is custom and a lease term statewide and citywide, not a local code, and entry in Philadelphia comes back to the lease and the covenant of quiet enjoyment just as it does anywhere else in the Commonwealth. Either way, enter at reasonable hours rather than early mornings, late evenings, or weekends unless the tenant agrees, and choose a delivery method the tenant will actually see – personal delivery, posting on the door, email where the lease allows it, or a combination. The form records the delivery method and a contact for rescheduling, which signals good faith and gives the tenant a clear way to raise a conflict instead of refusing entry outright.

The risk a Pennsylvania landlord is managing is real but specific, and it helps to name it precisely. It is not a statutory penalty, because Pennsylvania has not written one for landlord entry. Instead, the exposure is a common-law trespass claim by a tenant in possession – the rule of Kopka v. Bell Telephone Co. (1952), under which an intentional entry on possessed land is a trespass – together with a breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment, a constructive-eviction claim if the conduct drives the tenant out, an intrusion-upon-seclusion privacy claim for a highly offensive intrusion, and a straightforward breach-of-contract claim where the entry violates the lease. Each of these is measured by the tenant’s actual damages, and a tenant facing a pattern of unlawful entries can also ask a court to enjoin them under Pa.R.C.P. 1531. Understanding that the remedies are common-law and contractual – and that there is no Pennsylvania anti-harassment entry penalty to point to – is what lets a landlord size the risk correctly and manage it with simple, disciplined notice.

Two Pennsylvania-specific points are worth internalizing because so much generic landlord-tenant content gets them wrong. First, quiet enjoyment is a live entry remedy here. Pennsylvania implies the covenant of quiet enjoyment into every lease – the Supreme Court said so in Kohl v. PNC Bank, N.A., 590 Pa. 151 (2006), and the Superior Court applied it to a landlord’s interference in Pollock v. Morelli, 245 Pa. Super. 388 (1976) – so a landlord whose entries substantially interfere with the tenant’s enjoyment of the home can breach it, and a serious enough breach that drives the tenant out within a reasonable time becomes a constructive eviction. Second, retaliation in Pennsylvania is narrow. The Landlord and Tenant Act’s only retaliation provision, 68 P.S. section 250.205, bars termination or non-renewal solely for tenant-organization participation; it does not reach entry, and Pennsylvania has no broad anti-retaliation statute, so a landlord should not be told that ordinary over-entry triggers a statutory retaliation penalty – it does not. A landlord who keeps entries lease-compliant and reasonable stays clear of all of these theories.

The risk a Pennsylvania landlord is managing is, in the end, a documentation problem more than a legal one. A dated, signed notice for every routine entry is the simple, durable record that shows you acted reasonably, gave fair warning, and entered for a legitimate purpose. That record is what defeats a trespass or quiet-enjoyment narrative before it gains traction, and it is exactly what this form is built to produce. Pair a consistent entry practice with disciplined tenant screening and a documented screening process so your Pennsylvania tenancies are well-run from application through move-out.

• Pennsylvania has no statewide entry statute – the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1951 (68 P.S. §§ 250.101-250.602) is silent on entry, so access is lease-governed and backstopped by the common law.
• Do not cite a Pennsylvania entry statute, because none exists; the Act sets no notice period, no permitted purposes, and no reasonable hours.
• Follow the lease’s right-of-entry clause for notice period, purpose, and hours – it is the controlling document.
• Where the lease is silent, the accepted standard is 24 hours of written notice at reasonable hours.
• The covenant of quiet enjoyment is implied in every Pennsylvania lease (Kohl v. PNC Bank, 2006; applied in Pollock v. Morelli, 1976) – enter only reasonably and for a legitimate purpose.
• Enter at reasonable hours (commonly 8am-6pm) for a legitimate, property-management purpose.
• Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, has no statutory or local entry-notice rule – the 24-hour figure is custom and a lease term, not a code; Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance is an anti-discrimination law, not an entry ordinance.
• A genuine emergency allows immediate entry without advance notice, under the lease and common law – never “as permitted by Pennsylvania statute.”

• Personal delivery to the tenant.
• Posting on the door, alone or combined with email.
• Email or text where the lease permits electronic notice.
• Certified mail for a documented record when timing allows.

• Ignoring the lease’s own entry clause, which is the controlling document in Pennsylvania.
• Assuming a state statute sets the notice period – none does; the Landlord and Tenant Act is silent on entry.
• Citing a non-existent Pennsylvania entry statute, or calling emergency entry “statutorily permitted” when it rests on the lease and common law.
• Entering with little or no notice for routine, non-emergency reasons, exposing the landlord to a common-law trespass claim under Kopka.
• Entering at unreasonable hours – early mornings, late nights, or weekends – without the tenant’s agreement.
• Entering repeatedly even with notice, until the sheer volume of intrusions breaches the covenant of quiet enjoyment.
• Relying on a broad no-notice lease clause as a shield for pressuring or harassing a tenant.
• Assuming Philadelphia or another PA city sets its own entry-notice rule – none does.
• Overstating retaliation: 68 P.S. § 250.205 is narrow (tenant-organizing only) and does not turn ordinary over-entry into a statutory penalty.
• Treating a unit as abandoned on thin evidence and entering, when the tenant is merely away.
• Giving vague notice that omits the purpose, the time window, or who will enter, and keeping no dated copy.

• Put a clear right-of-entry clause in every lease: notice period, permitted purposes, and hours.
• Default to 24 hours of written notice even when the lease asks for less.
• State the exact purpose, the time window, and the persons entering on every notice.
• Enter only at reasonable hours and no more often than the task genuinely requires.
• Confirm a tenant’s real-time consent in writing – a text or email noting date, time, and purpose.
• For emergencies, document the time, the nature of the emergency, what was found, and what was done.
• For showings, group visits into defined windows and give the tenant generous lead time.
• Follow the lease’s entry clause – no PA city, including Philadelphia, sets its own entry-notice rule.
• Confirm abandonment with real evidence before relying on it; when in doubt, use legal process, not self-help.
• Offer a clear way to reschedule, and keep every signed notice on file for the life of the tenancy.

Published by Tenant Screening Background Check

Established 2004 · 20+ Years · All U.S. States & Territories · Statute-Based · Attorney-Reviewed

A Private Eye Reports™ service trusted by landlords, property managers, and attorneys.