Most of the major Canadian gas stations are well represented in my sizeable city. But over the last few years they seem to have closed many less profitable locations. There are old stations at several major intersections with fences, missing pumps and boarded up convenience stores.
My question regards using this land for other purposes. Are there likely to be significant restrictions on use or weighty additional costs on land for once used for a typical four-pumps-and-a convenience-store setup? (Obviously this depends on local laws and many other things, but I am just asking in the most general of terms).
Yes, old gas station sites often sit vacant for years, even decades, as various parties fight over who is responsible for restoring it to fitness for other uses.
Cite: I’ve worked for retailers with many gas stations attached to convenience and grocery stores for decades. Some might say the convenience stores are attached to gas stations. I’ve also been on permitting boards of local government for many years (though I’ve recused myself from discussions and votes on all matters involving retail or gas station properties, of course)
I’m no expert, but I imagine that the tanks need to be dug up and removed. And the soil needs to be tested for contamination. If any is present, the costs would skyrocket.
In my area, there’s a former gas station that’s in the slow process of being converted to a small hotel, so it’s worth it, if the land is particularly valuable.
There are two vacant lots on one of the main streets I drive on. Both are former filling stations. Both have been vacant for 30+ years.
One is opposite a church that is cramped for parking space. I heard that the owners of that lot offered to give it to the church. The church folk investigated the risk of taking it on, and passed up on free land. The potential clean-up risk was way too high.
There was a « for sale » sign on one of them. One time going by I noticed that there was some soil sampling going on. The sign came down after a while; no sale.
A fuel tank that has been buried underground for a few decades has most likely leaked. Especially if it’s an older, single-walled tank. Cleaning up the resulting soil contamination can take years & cost big bucks. And if leaked fuel has reached the groundwater, multiply both time and money several-fold. It’s not unusual for the cleanup costs to exceed the value of the property.
California has an Underground Fuel Tank Cleanup Fund that will cover up to $1.5M per site. But the owner has to pay up front and apply for reimbursement, which can take years to get.
Gas stations that closed down get their tanks removed from underground pretty fast around here. There is clearly a priority (tough enough penalty) to do so.
Soil contamination from leaking tanks over decades can be a major cost, to the extent that it might be cheaper to sit on a vacant block rather than clearing it before development can be approved.
Rules will vary by jurisdiction but the onus is usually on the current owner to get the site cleaned and certified before it can be rezoned to another purpose, such as erecting shops and residences. The [not unreasonable] expectation of most cities would be to require proof that there is zero or less than safe limit levels of contamination before they let anyone live there. Once a city approves a development a lot of the legal risk would pass from the contaminating owner to them if anyone got sick and sued years down the track.
The bar for having another vehicle-related use (.g. car sales, car repair) might be set much lower.
As electricity begins to overtake liquid fuel for cars, many filling stations are expected to be redundant around the UK. Many of these sites are potentially valuable and are unlikely to remain vacant for long.
We have a long history of cleaning up industrial sites here and filling stations, being highly regulated, are not normally seriously polluted. Many sites are part of supermarkets and may well end up as extra parking to make up for the rows of car-charging points.
Internet shopping has reduced the need for retail space (loads of empty shops on the High Street these days) so housing seems the most likely replacement.
The term used to describe land that has been contaminated is “brownfield”. I have a friend who has created a good little business as a brownfields consultant. He helps developers obtain, remediate and develop brownfields. There are significant federal funds available to help assist the process. These are known as “Superfunds”.
Since there are also impediments to opening a gas station at a new location and many of the old ones were in prime locations, the cost of cleaning up the old gas stations becomes less of deterrent and eventually someone will pay for it.
A gas station near my business closed down years ago. The owner was trying to sell the property, but it had negative value. He luckily found two brothers wanting to buy it just to work on their own cars and projects. The pumps are gone but the underground issues haven’t been addressed.
I would think that all the gas would be pumped out when the station shut down. I suppose a small leak over years would not be noticed and pollute the soil, but I don’t see why one couldn’t use the area as a parking lot.
I can’t find the applicable regulations (not being willing to download two pdfs and search through dozens of pages), but it seems to me that, in Albuquerque at least, a gas station owner is required to remove underground tanks as soon as they’re decommissioned. When a station closes here, within a few weeks of the “Closed” sign going up, you’ll see an excavator digging the tanks out. It’s quite likely that if a station went bankrupt, the city, county, state, or federal EPA takes care of it, but the tanks always come out of the ground.
It’s certainly true in California that inactive tanks are not allowed to stay in the ground. But if there’s soil and/or groundwater contamination, it’s still going to be a lot of time and money before the site is clean. There are also old, long-closed gas stations (or other businesses that had on-site fuel tanks) that pre-date current regulations and where tanks were left in the ground, and were not necessarily emptied first.
Use of a contaminated site as a parking lot would be a possibility. But if you purchase, or even lease, such a property for such a use, you become financially liable for the cleanup.
Well around here an abandoned gas station is likely to be owned by an llc that is insolvent and posted a $50k bond fifty years ago.
What follows is an expensive and usually fruitless attempt to identify potential private liable parties (including attempts to pierce corporate veils). Then an attempt to qualify for Superfund funding. Which used to be funded by taxes on actual polluters, but is now just funded by the gener as l fund (since the first round of legislation under “Contract with America”, I believe).
Not only gas stations have this problem. The next block over from me is a lot that used to be a small shopping center. One chunk of it was torn down at least a decade ago, but is still sitting unbuilt - the reason being that one of the stores was a dry cleaners and the soil got contaminated. They could put eight houses in the lot at $2 million a pop at least, so the cleanup must be way expensive.
And it is a not uncommon scam- owner finds that tanks are rusting, burns report. Sells without informing buyer. Buyer is stuck with costs. Sure he can sue, but…