In Pessolano v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 159 Pa. Commw. 313, 632 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), neighboring property owners appeared at a zoning hearing to oppose a landowner's application for a special exception. The zoning board denied the application, and the landowner appealed to common pleas court. The landowner did not serve the neighboring property owners with a notice of appeal. On appeal, the court reversed the zoning board's decision, granted the special exception, and imposed conditions on the property's use. After the appeal period lapsed, the neighboring property owners petitioned to vacate the court's order on the basis they were denied the opportunity to intervene in the landowner's appeal. They cited a city zoning ordinance requiring an appealing party to notify all persons appearing before the zoning hearing board of an appeal. Sustaining the landowner's preliminary objections, the common pleas court dismissed the petition to vacate. Of import, the court concluded the landowner's failure to strictly comply with the city ordinance did not warrant reversal of its decision because the property owners did not claim lack of actual knowledge of the landowner's appeal. The Court affirmed. Cognizant of the procedural safeguards that notice provisions are to provide, the Court stated the value and necessity of strict compliance with the notice requirements is diminished where the interested parties have actual notice of the legal proceedings. "Actual notice serves to accomplish the same purposes that legal notice is intended to accomplish. Both forms of notice serve to make interested parties aware of the opportunity to exercise their legal rights." Id. at 317.