What Commercial Real Estate Owners and Managers Need to Know
Amid evolving and often uncertain federal regulations, state environmental agencies have increasingly taken the lead in developing policies to address PFAS.
By Jerry Ostrander, National Practice Leader of Environmental Solutions, with Partner
PFAS — often called “forever chemicals” and also known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are quickly becoming a standard consideration in commercial real estate.
While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six PFAS compounds and designated two PFAS compounds (PFOA and PFOS) as hazardous substances, it has not implemented a comprehensive national framework for soil and groundwater cleanup. Additionally, the EPA has recently backtracked and has even proposed partially rescinding MCLS for three PFAS compounds. Concurrently and as a result of this, several states have taken the lead by developing their own standards and regulatory programs driven by the need for enforceable standards to drive investigation under their own authorities. This has created a patchwork of requirements that vary significantly across jurisdictions.
For property owners and managers, this can introduce uncertainty, particularly for portfolios that span multiple jurisdictions and geographical footprints. However, it also reflects a growing regulatory maturity that can be navigated effectively with the right expertise and planning.
PFAS Regulation at the State Level
Several states have taken the lead with well-developed PFAS programs. New Jersey, for example, established enforceable drinking water limits before federal standards were finalized and has adopted numeric remediation standards for PFAS in soil and groundwater. Additionally, New Jersey now regularly incorporates PFAS consideration into site remediation and property transfer requirements and has expanded regulatory oversight to include additional PFAS compounds beyond those currently regulated at the federal level. State regulators have broad authority to require investigation and cleanup, meaning PFAS considerations are increasingly embedded in transactions and redevelopment processes. Where this gets tricky is that properties with previously closed remediation cases or ongoing remediation could be revisited if PFAS is identified or suspected and may require PFAS to be included in analytical testing when contaminants are unknown or not well characterized.
Michigan has developed one of the clearest and most comprehensive PFAS regulatory frameworks in the country, with detailed cleanup criteria for seven PFAS compounds for soil and groundwater. These criteria are routinely applied in remediation decisions and are supported by soil screening values that account for migration into groundwater. Because Michigan directly ties PFAS cleanup to drinking water protection with enforceable cleanup thresholds, the result is a more predictable, though stringent, process that allows stakeholders to better understand expectations early in a project lifecycle. While this structured system is more predictable, closed remediation cases are subject to being reopened based on clear triggers for reevaluation – this systematic re-evaluation of legacy contamination has resulted in a large number of site re-openers.
Other states are broadening the scope of PFAS oversight beyond traditional cleanup programs. California, for example, has adopted a multimedia approach that integrates drinking water monitoring, industrial discharge controls, landfill leachate management, and site-specific investigation authority exercised by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. Statewide investigative orders have required sampling at high-risk source categories — including airports, landfills, refineries, and wastewater treatment facilities — while publicly owned treatment works are subject to influent, effluent, and biosolids monitoring to better characterize PFAS pathways through the waste stream. In parallel, drinking water systems are subject to mandatory testing and advisory-based response thresholds, and product bans and source-control regulations aim to limit future releases. Even in the absence of uniform statewide cleanup standards, these overlapping mechanisms provide regulators with multiple entry points to identify and manage PFAS risks across environmental media, often allowing intervention earlier in the lifecycle of contamination but introducing greater variability in how requirements are applied at individual sites.
In New York and Maine, PFAS is increasingly being integrated into land use and redevelopment decisions through pathway-focused and program-based regulatory approaches. In New York, regulators are applying greater scrutiny within the Brownfield Cleanup Program and other site remediation programs and may require site-specific PFAS investigation based on historical uses or proximity to potential sources. The state is also evaluating PFAS risks associated with biosolids land application and landfill leachate, extending regulatory attention beyond traditional contaminated sites to include wastewater and waste management pathways.
In Maine, regulatory focus has centered on agricultural impacts, particularly the historical land application of biosolids, which has prompted widespread investigation of farmland and rural properties and led to restrictions on sludge reuse. As a result, PFAS considerations are increasingly influencing how agricultural and wastewater-associated properties are evaluated during transactions, effectively expanding the definition of environmental liability and introducing new considerations into land valuation and redevelopment planning.
Minnesota reflects a growing trend toward regulating PFAS as a class rather than focusing only on individual compounds like PFOA and PFOS. State law broadly defines PFAS as a category of fluorinated organic chemicals, enabling regulation to extend across thousands of compounds rather than a discrete list. This approach is most visible in Minnesota’s product-focused regulatory program, which requires manufacturers to report PFAS in products and implements phased restrictions leading to a near-total ban on intentionally added PFAS by 2032. At the same time, health-based groundwater values continue to be developed and updated for specific compounds, while the state’s broader “PFAS Blueprint” integrates control measures across manufacturing, waste management, wastewater, and environmental media. By targeting PFAS throughout its lifecycle — including in agricultural inputs and consumer products — Minnesota expands the range of potential liabilities beyond traditional contaminated sites, while also signaling a more comprehensive and forward-looking strategy aimed at preventing future contamination rather than relying solely on remediation.
Across these jurisdictions, several consistent themes are emerging. States are adopting lower concentration thresholds, regulating a broader set of PFAS compounds, and incorporating PFAS into established permitting, cleanup, and redevelopment frameworks. For commercial real estate stakeholders, PFAS is no longer a niche issue limited to drinking water. It is becoming a routine consideration in due diligence, leasing, financing, and asset management.
PFAS Strategy for Property Owners and Managers
Despite this complexity, owners and managers can continue to conduct business with confidence by proactively addressing PFAS risk. A critical first step is identifying higher-risk properties, particularly those with industrial uses, firefighting training history, manufacturing operations, or wastewater handling. In these cases, targeted PFAS investigation may be appropriate alongside traditional environmental assessments.
In addition, consultants can support practical implementation by designing appropriate sampling programs, interpreting results against applicable standards, coordinating with regulators, and advising on transaction-related considerations such as environmental disclosures, lease provisions, and risk allocation strategies. This integrated approach helps align regulatory compliance with business objectives while minimizing uncertainty, cost exposure, and schedule impacts.
Incorporating PFAS considerations into acquisition strategies, redevelopment planning, and ongoing asset management is becoming essential. A proactive approach can help:
- Avoid unexpected delays during transactions
- Reduce the risk of post-acquisition liability
- Maintain alignment with lender and investor expectations
- Protect long-term asset value
By integrating PFAS into broader environmental management practices, owners can move from a reactive posture to a more strategic and informed approach.
Although PFAS regulation remains dynamic, it is becoming more structured and predictable at the state level. For commercial real estate stakeholders, the path forward is not to wait for complete federal uniformity, but to proactively adapt to the current framework with informed, expert support. With the right strategy and assistance of knowledgeable environmental consultants, owners and managers can navigate varying state requirements, manage liability effectively, and continue to advance acquisitions and development opportunities with clarity and confidence.
