Right to Farm Act FAQs

Why was the Right to Farm Act created?

The Michigan Court of Appeals succinctly answered that question. “The Legislature undoubtedly realized that, as residential and commercial development expands outward from our state's urban centers and into our agricultural communities, farming operations are often threatened by local zoning ordinances and irate neighbors. It, therefore, enacted the Right to Farm Act to protect farmers from the threat of extinction caused by nuisance suits arising out of alleged violations of local zoning ordinances and other local land use regulations as well as from the threat of private nuisance suits.”  Northville Twp v Coyne, 170 Mich App 446, 448–449 (1988).  

What are nuisances?

A nuisance is an interference with another’s enjoyment of property. Hadfield v Oakland Cty Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 (1988). It does not require a physical invasion of the property, like a trespass. Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co, 440 Mich 293 (1992). To prevail on a nuisance theory, a plaintiff must prove significant harm resulting from the defendant’s unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of their property. Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC, 239 Mich App 482, 490 (2000).

Broadly speaking, there are two types of nuisance lawsuits. 

A “public nuisance includes interference with the public health, the public safety, the public morals, the public peace, the public comfort, and the public convenience in travel.” Ypsilanti Charter Tp v Kircher, 281 Mich App 251, 276 (2008). The essential elements of a public nuisance “involves unreasonable interference with public rights,” generally requiring “conduct that (1) significantly interferes with the public's health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience, (2) is proscribed by law, or (3) is known or should have been known by the actor to be of a continuing nature that produces a permanent or long-lasting, significant effect on these rights.” Capitol Properties Group, LLC v 1247 Ctr St, LLC, 283 Mich App 422, 430–31 (2009).

A private nuisance relates to a particular property. The elements for a private nuisance generally include “that (1) defendants interfered with the use or enjoyment of their property rights and privileges; (2) defendants' invasion of those property interests caused plaintiff significant harm; and (3) the invasion was either intentional and unreasonable or otherwise ‘actionable under the rules governing liability for negligent, reckless, or ultrahazardous conduct.’” Capitol Properties Group, LLC v 1247 Ctr St, LLC, 283 Mich App 422, 431-432 (2009).

How does the Right to Farm Act protect farmers from nuisance lawsuits?

The RTFA provides protection two ways.

First, a farm operation is grandfathered and protected against being a nuisance when a new use moves toward it. “A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation existed before a change in the land use or occupancy of land within 1 mile of the boundaries of the farm land, and if before that change in land use or occupancy of land, the farm or farm operation would not have been a nuisance.”  MCL 286.473(2).

Second, a farm activity that conforms to a GAAMP is not a nuisance.  MCL 286.473(1).

What is a GAAMP? 

Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) are guidelines for farm management that are developed, adopted, and generally reviewed annually by the Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development. Actions taken consistent with GAAMPS “shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance.”  MCL 286.473(1).

What activities are covered by GAAMPS and where can I find them?

The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development or MDARD publishes the GAAMPs. 

There are currently GAAMPS covering the Care of Farm Animals, Cranberry Production, Farm Markets, Irrigation Water Uses, Manure Management/Utilization, Nutrient Utilization, Pesticide Utilization-Pest Control, and Site Selection.

How can a farmer determine whether GAAMP protection applies?

The Michigan Commission of Agriculture and Rural Development or MDARD will review requests from farmers to determine if they are GAAMP compliant. It will also review complaints made by neighbors or local governments. These reviews generally involve inspections by MDARD personnel.

Can a grandfathered farm change or resume its operations and retain protection under the Right to Farm Act?

Yes. A grandfathered farm can do all of the following and remain protected from being deemed to be a public or private nuisance:  (1) change ownership; (2) change size; (3) temporarily cease or interrupt farming operations; (4) enroll in government programs; (5) adopt new technology; and (6) change the type of farm product being produced. MCL 286.473(3).

What type of farm products are covered by the Right to Farm Act?

"Farm product" means those plants and animals useful to human beings produced by agriculture and includes, but is not limited to, forages and sod crops, grains and feed crops, field crops, dairy and dairy products, poultry and poultry products, cervidae, livestock, including breeding and grazing, equine, fish, and other aquacultural products, bees and bee products, berries, herbs, fruits, vegetables, flowers, seeds, grasses, nursery stock, trees and tree products, mushrooms, and other similar products, or any other product which incorporates the use of food, feed, fiber, or fur, as determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture.”  MCL 286.472.

Does the Right to Farm Act protect farmers against zoning regulations?

Yes. “It is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.”  MCL 286.474(6).

How are Farm Markets protected?

The 2025 Farm Market GAAMP recognizes that while the Right to Farm Act’s definition of a farm operation includes Farm Markets, the statute itself “does not define a farm market or describe specific marketing activities.” Therefore, the Farm Market GAAMP provides guidance as to what constitutes an on-farm market and farm market activities. 

A Farm Market is defined as “a year-round or seasonal location where transactions and marketing activities between farm market operators and customers take place.” The location may but need not include a physical structure and may be owned or leased by the farmer. “At least 50 percent of the farm products offered must be produced on and by the affiliated farm measured by retail floor space during peak production season, or 50 percent of the average gross sales for up to the previous five years or as outlined in a business plan.”   

A Farm Market can include marketing like “promotional and educational activities at the farm market incidental to farm products with the intention of selling more farm products. These activities include, but are not limited to, farm tours (walking or motorized), demonstrations, cooking and other classes utilizing farm products, and farm-to-table dinners.”

Farm products may be processed.

There are zoning protections for Farm Markets. “A farm market should have a written site plan for potential MDARD review that preempts local government regulations.” The GAAMP incorporates setbacks from homes, allows at least one sign, and much flexibility in terms of parking and driveway surfaces than allowed by typical zoning ordinances.

Can farmers recover their attorney fees if they win a lawsuit by asserting the Right to Farm Act?

Yes. “A prevailing farm or farm operation is entitled to the actual amount of costs and expenses reasonably incurred, together with reasonable and actual attorney fees, when so demanded” if it prevails in an action alleging it to be a nuisance. Twp v Rice, 509 Mich 363, 372 (2022). A court does not enjoy the discretion to decline to award attorney fees.

Can you describe situations where you have assisted farmers?

I have helped farmers in a number of situations involving the Right to Farm Act including defending lawsuits asserting that activities were nuisances, identifying the proper GAAMPs, assisting farmers when seeking GAAMP compliance certification, and contradicting false assertions by municipalities that their zoning regulations applied. In addition, I have helped farmers in other areas of the law, including eminent domain takings, tax appeals, other zoning issues, and contract reviews.

You may reach me by email at sbagne@clarkhill.com or by phone at 313-965-8897.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.