COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Water Contracts The Company has secured water contracts that are encumbered by the Company's land. These water contracts require minimum annual payments, for which $12,366,000 was paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2025. These water contract payments consist of SWP contracts with WRMWSD, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin, Dudley-Ridge, and the Nickel water contract. The SWP contracts run through 2085, and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. The Company's contractual obligation for future water payments was $1,458,839,000 as of September 30, 2025. Contracts The Company terminated a consulting arrangement in 2014 related to the Grapevine at Tejon Ranch development (Grapevine) and remains obligated to pay an incentive fee upon obtaining certain regulatory approvals (Regulatory Approvals). The fee is based on the increase in the property’s fair market value over a base value, to be determined at the time Regulatory Approvals are obtained, with an additional fee measured from the property’s value five years thereafter. The final amount will be determined at those future valuation dates, and, at this time, the fees cannot be reasonably estimated. Community Facilities Districts TRPFFA is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. For the development of TRCC, TRPFFA has created two CFDs: the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $19,540,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $95,660,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $18,605,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future. As a landowner in each CFD, the Company is obligated to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure costs related to the TRCC-West development. As of September 30, 2025, there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds. On July 25, 2024, TRPFFA sold bonds that provide approximately $25,000,000 of improvement funds for the reimbursement of public infrastructure costs at TRCC-East. As of September 30, 2025, there are $14,290,000 of additional improvement funds remaining within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during future years. During fiscal year 2025, the Company expects to pay approximately $3,642,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future, based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time, because it is based on the current tax rate and assessed value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company was not required to recognize an obligation on September 30, 2025. Centennial On April 30, 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted final entitlement approval for the Centennial project. On May 15, 2019, Climate Resolve filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court (the Climate Resolve Action), pursuant to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law, against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, LA County) concerning LA County’s granting of approvals for the Centennial project, including certification of the final EIR and related findings (Centennial EIR); approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning; adoption of the Centennial Specific Plan; approval of a subdivision map for financing purposes; and adoption of a development agreement, among other approvals (collectively, the Centennial Approvals). Separately, on May 28, 2019, the CBD and the CNPS filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the CBD/CNPS Action) against LA County; like the Climate Resolve Action, the CBD/CNPS Action also challenges the Centennial Approvals. The Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Tejon Ranchcorp, and CFL were named as real parties-in-interest in both the Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action collectively alleged that LA County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action were deemed “related” and, while not consolidated under court rules or the rules of civil procedure, the Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Superior Court or Court) trying both cases determined during early trial management conferences to hold one set of hearings and issue one ruling on the matters as part of the adjudication. The Climate Resolve Action and CBD/CNPS Action sought to invalidate the Centennial Approvals and require LA County to revise the environmental documentation related to the Centennial project. On April 5, 2021, the Court issued its decision denying the petition for writ of mandate by CBD/CNPS and granting the petition for writ of mandate filed by Climate Resolve. In granting Climate Resolve’s petition, the Court found three specific areas where the EIR for the project was lacking. The Court ruled that California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating GHG impacts for the project and therefore further ruled that additional analysis will be required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts. The Court also found that the EIR must provide additional analysis and explanation of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant. On April 19, 2021, CBD filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court on the denial of their petition for writ of mandate to be granted prevailing party status in its case based on the Court's conclusions in the Climate Resolve Action (“Motion for Reconsideration”). On November 30, 2021, the Company, together with Ranchcorp and CFL, entered into a Settlement Agreement with Climate Resolve. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed as stated and obligated in the Settlement Agreement: (1) to make Centennial a net zero GHG emissions project through various on-site and off-site measures including, but not limited to, installing electric vehicle chargers and establishing and funding incentive programs for the purchase of electric vehicles; (2) to fund certain on-site and off-site fire protection and prevention measures; and (3) to provide annual public reports and create an organization to monitor progress towards these commitments. The foregoing is only a summary of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement and does not purport to be a complete description of the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement. In exchange, Climate Resolve filed a request for dismissal of the Climate Resolve Action with prejudice from the Court. On January 14, 2022, the Court heard CBD/CNPS' Motion for Reconsideration and issued its decision granting CBD/CNPS prevailing party status based on the Court’s conclusions in the Climate Resolve Action, which status as prevailing parties could require the Company to pay CBD/CNPS’s attorneys’ fees and other costs, which amounts could be significant. On October 26, 2022, the Court held a hearing concerning the entry of final judgment and awarding of appropriate remedies, at which time the Court agreed to: (a) hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration as to the successful challenges Climate Resolve prevailed upon within the Climate Resolve Action and ordered the Parties to appear on December 14, 2022 to hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration and (b) rule on the entry of final judgment and setting of remedies at a February 17, 2023 hearing date. At the December 14, 2022 hearing, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration. At the February 17, 2023 hearing, the Court took into submission the Parties’ legal briefs and oral arguments. On March 22, 2023, the Court decided in favor of CBD/CNPS and signed CBD/CNPS’s proposed form of judgment, which included a full rescission of the Centennial project approvals previously issued by Los Angeles County and which also concluded that CBD/CNPS were prevailing parties ("Judgment"). On May 26, 2023, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court, thereby appealing the Judgment to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal). On June 27, 2023, CBD/CNPS cross-appealed the Judgment. The Court of Appeal held a hearing on April 3, 2025 for this matter. On June 26, 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a written decision affirming the Superior Court’s Judgment. In doing so, the Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court determinations that (i) the CBD/CNPS Action claims related to wildlife connectivity, perennial grassland and wildflower impacts, and project alternatives were without merit, (ii) California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating GHG impacts for the Centennial project and, therefore, further ruled that additional analysis is required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts, (iii) additional analysis and explanation are required of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the Centennial project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant, (iv) the Centennial Approvals be rescinded and Centennial EIR decertified pending correction of the EIR for the issues described above, and (v) CBD/CNPS were prevailing parties. The Court of Appeal also indicated that the EIR should discuss wildfire risks associated with the Project’s offsite improvements (such as offsite utility and natural gas lines). On September 5, 2025, the Court of Appeal transferred jurisdiction of CBD/CNPS Action back to the Superior Court, which thereafter entered a writ of mandate on September 22, 2025 ordering LA County to set aside the Centennial Approvals (the “Writ”), something that was expected in light of the Court of Appeal decision summarized above. LA County has ninety days from the issuance of the Writ (i.e., by December 21, 2025) to return to the Superior Court confirming that it has complied with the Writ by rescinding the Centennial Approvals. We anticipate LA County will rescind the Centennial Approvals in the fourth quarter of 2025 before the December 21st deadline. On October 15, 2025, CBD/CNPS filed a motion for attorney's fees, the award of which is in the discretion of the trial court. The Company is in the process of working with LA County to advance the Centennial project. Following LA County’s anticipated rescission of the Centennial Approvals later this year, the Company will seek re-entitlement of the Centennial project (“re-entitlement”). We expect that re-entitlement will involve processing project and use entitlements that are substantively similar to the Centennial Approvals that were approved by the LA County Board of Supervisors in April of 2019. As part of the re-entitlement, supplemental environmental analysis will be prepared and limited to addressing the deficiencies raised in the Judgment and Court of Appeal decision, and any new information legally required to be addressed. Following a public comment and review period, the LA County Regional Planning Commission would hold a hearing to make a recommendation to the LA County Board of Supervisors on the re-entitlement of the Centennial project. Thereafter, the LA County Board of Supervisors would hold a hearing to consider the supplemental environmental analysis and whether to take action to approve the re-entitlement of the Centennial project, with possible LA County Board of Supervisors action anticipated to occur by the end of 2026. Following the LA County Board of Supervisors’ action, the Company and LA County would return to the Superior Court to demonstrate compliance with and seek discharge of the Writ, and further litigation could challenge the re-entitlement. As the Company’s process to reinstate the project approvals remain pending, the monetary value of any adverse decision, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. Proceedings Incidental to Business From time to time, the Company is involved in other proceedings incidental to its business, including actions relating to employee claims, real estate disputes, contractor disputes and grievance hearings before labor regulatory agencies. The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate.

The Company has secured water contracts that are encumbered by the Company's land. These water contracts require minimum annual payments, for which $12,366,000 was paid during the nine months ended September 30, 2025. These water contract payments consist of SWP contracts with WRMWSD, TCWD, Tulare Lake Basin, Dudley-Ridge, and the Nickel water contract. The SWP contracts run through 2085, and the Nickel water contract runs through 2044, with an option to extend an additional 35 years. The Company's contractual obligation for future water payments was $1,458,839,000 as of September 30, 2025.

The Company terminated a consulting arrangement in 2014 related to the Grapevine at Tejon Ranch development (Grapevine) and remains obligated to pay an incentive fee upon obtaining certain regulatory approvals (Regulatory Approvals). The fee is based on the increase in the property’s fair market value over a base value, to be determined at the time Regulatory Approvals are obtained, with an additional fee measured from the property’s value five years thereafter. The final amount will be determined at those future valuation dates, and, at this time, the fees cannot be reasonably estimated.

TRPFFA is a joint powers authority formed by Kern County and TCWD to finance public infrastructure within the Company’s Kern County developments. For the development of TRCC, TRPFFA has created two CFDs: the West CFD and the East CFD. The West CFD has placed liens on 420 acres of the Company’s land to secure payment of special taxes related to $19,540,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-West. The East CFD has placed liens on 1,931 acres of the Company’s land to secure payments of special taxes related to $95,660,000 of outstanding bond debt sold by TRPFFA for TRCC-East. At TRCC-West, the West CFD has no additional bond debt approved for issuance. At TRCC-East, the East CFD has approximately $18,605,000 of additional bond debt authorized by TRPFFA that can be sold in the future.

As a landowner in each CFD, the Company is obligated to pay its share of the special taxes assessed each year. The secured lands include both the TRCC-West and TRCC-East developments. Proceeds from the sale of West CFD bonds went to reimburse the Company for public infrastructure costs related to the TRCC-West development. As of September 30, 2025, there were no additional improvement funds remaining from the West CFD bonds. On July 25, 2024, TRPFFA sold bonds that provide approximately $25,000,000 of improvement funds for the reimbursement of public infrastructure costs at TRCC-East. As of September 30, 2025, there are $14,290,000 of additional improvement funds remaining within the East CFD bonds for reimbursement of public infrastructure costs during future years. During fiscal year 2025, the Company expects to pay approximately $3,642,000 in special taxes. As development continues to occur at TRCC, new owners of land and new lease tenants, through triple net leases, will bear an increasing portion of the assessed special tax. This amount could change in the future, based on the amount of bonds outstanding and the amount of taxes paid by others. The assessment of each individual property sold or leased is not determinable at this time, because it is based on the current tax rate and assessed value of the property at the time of sale or on its assessed value at the time it is leased to a third-party. Accordingly, the Company was not required to recognize an obligation on September 30, 2025.

On April 30, 2019, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors granted final entitlement approval for the Centennial project. On May 15, 2019, Climate Resolve filed an action in Los Angeles Superior Court (the Climate Resolve Action), pursuant to CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law, against the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (collectively, LA County) concerning LA County’s granting of approvals for the Centennial project, including certification of the final EIR and related findings (Centennial EIR); approval of associated general plan amendments; adoption of associated zoning; adoption of the Centennial Specific Plan; approval of a subdivision map for financing purposes; and adoption of a development agreement, among other approvals (collectively, the Centennial Approvals). Separately, on May 28, 2019, the CBD and the CNPS filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court (the CBD/CNPS Action) against LA County; like the Climate Resolve Action, the CBD/CNPS Action also challenges the Centennial Approvals. The Company, its wholly owned subsidiary Tejon Ranchcorp, and CFL were named as real parties-in-interest in both the Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action.

The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action collectively alleged that LA County failed to properly follow the procedures and requirements of CEQA and the California Planning and Zoning Law. The Climate Resolve Action and the CBD/CNPS Action were deemed “related” and, while not consolidated under court rules or the rules of civil procedure, the Los Angeles Superior Court judge (Superior Court or Court) trying both cases determined during early trial management conferences to hold one set of hearings and issue one ruling on the matters as part of the adjudication. The Climate Resolve Action and CBD/CNPS Action sought to invalidate the Centennial Approvals and require LA County to revise the environmental documentation related to the Centennial project.

On April 5, 2021, the Court issued its decision denying the petition for writ of mandate by CBD/CNPS and granting the petition for writ of mandate filed by Climate Resolve. In granting Climate Resolve’s petition, the Court found three specific areas where the EIR for the project was lacking. The Court ruled that California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating GHG impacts for the project and therefore further ruled that additional analysis will be required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts. The Court also found that the EIR must provide additional analysis and explanation of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant. On April 19, 2021, CBD filed a motion for reconsideration with the Court on the denial of their petition for writ of mandate to be granted prevailing party status in its case based on the Court's conclusions in the Climate Resolve Action (“Motion for Reconsideration”).

On November 30, 2021, the Company, together with Ranchcorp and CFL, entered into a Settlement Agreement with Climate Resolve. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company has agreed as stated and obligated in the Settlement Agreement: (1) to make Centennial a net zero GHG emissions project through various on-site and off-site measures including, but not limited to, installing electric vehicle chargers and establishing and funding incentive programs for the purchase of electric vehicles; (2) to fund certain on-site and off-site fire protection and prevention measures; and (3) to provide annual public reports and create an organization to monitor progress towards these commitments. The foregoing is only a summary of the material terms of the Settlement Agreement and does not purport to be a complete description of the rights and obligations of the parties thereunder and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Settlement Agreement. In exchange, Climate Resolve filed a request for dismissal of the Climate Resolve Action with prejudice from the Court. On January 14, 2022, the Court heard CBD/CNPS' Motion for Reconsideration and issued its decision granting CBD/CNPS prevailing party status based on the Court’s conclusions in the Climate Resolve Action, which status as prevailing parties could require the Company to pay CBD/CNPS’s attorneys’ fees and other costs, which amounts could be significant.

On October 26, 2022, the Court held a hearing concerning the entry of final judgment and awarding of appropriate remedies, at which time the Court agreed to: (a) hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration as to the successful challenges Climate Resolve prevailed upon within the Climate Resolve Action and ordered the Parties to appear on December 14, 2022 to hear the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration and (b) rule on the entry of final judgment and setting of remedies at a February 17, 2023 hearing date.

At the December 14, 2022 hearing, the Court denied the Company’s Motion for Reconsideration. At the February 17, 2023 hearing, the Court took into submission the Parties’ legal briefs and oral arguments. On March 22, 2023, the Court decided in favor of CBD/CNPS and signed CBD/CNPS’s proposed form of judgment, which included a full rescission of the Centennial project approvals previously issued by Los Angeles County and which also concluded that CBD/CNPS were prevailing parties ("Judgment").

On May 26, 2023, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court, thereby appealing the Judgment to the Second District of the California Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal). On June 27, 2023, CBD/CNPS cross-appealed the Judgment. The Court of Appeal held a hearing on April 3, 2025 for this matter. On June 26, 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a written decision affirming the Superior Court’s Judgment. In doing so, the Court of Appeal upheld the Superior Court determinations that (i) the CBD/CNPS Action claims related to wildlife connectivity, perennial grassland and wildflower impacts, and project alternatives were without merit, (ii) California’s Cap-and-Trade Program cannot be used as a compliance pathway for mitigating GHG impacts for the Centennial project and, therefore, further ruled that additional analysis is required related to all feasible mitigation of GHG impacts, (iii) additional analysis and explanation are required of how wildland fire risk on lands outside of the Centennial project site, posed by on-site ignition sources, is mitigated to less than significant, (iv) the Centennial Approvals be rescinded and Centennial EIR decertified pending correction of the EIR for the issues described above, and (v) CBD/CNPS were prevailing parties. The Court of Appeal also indicated that the EIR should discuss wildfire risks associated with the Project’s offsite improvements (such as offsite utility and natural gas lines).

On September 5, 2025, the Court of Appeal transferred jurisdiction of CBD/CNPS Action back to the Superior Court, which thereafter entered a writ of mandate on September 22, 2025 ordering LA County to set aside the Centennial Approvals (the “Writ”), something that was expected in light of the Court of Appeal decision summarized above. LA County has ninety days from the issuance of the Writ (i.e., by December 21, 2025) to return to the Superior Court confirming that it has complied with the Writ by rescinding the Centennial Approvals. We anticipate LA County will rescind the Centennial Approvals in the fourth quarter of 2025 before the December 21st deadline. On October 15, 2025, CBD/CNPS filed a motion for attorney's fees, the award of which is in the discretion of the trial court.

The Company is in the process of working with LA County to advance the Centennial project. Following LA County’s anticipated rescission of the Centennial Approvals later this year, the Company will seek re-entitlement of the Centennial project (“re-entitlement”). We expect that re-entitlement will involve processing project and use entitlements that are substantively similar to the Centennial Approvals that were approved by the LA County Board of Supervisors in April of 2019. As part of the re-entitlement, supplemental environmental analysis will be prepared and limited to addressing the deficiencies raised in the Judgment and Court of Appeal decision, and any new information legally required to be addressed. Following a public comment and review period, the LA County Regional Planning Commission would hold a hearing to make a recommendation to the LA County Board of Supervisors on the re-entitlement of the Centennial project. Thereafter, the LA County Board of Supervisors would hold a hearing to consider the supplemental environmental analysis and whether to take action to approve the re-entitlement of the Centennial project, with possible LA County Board of Supervisors action anticipated to occur by the end of 2026. Following the LA County Board of Supervisors’ action, the Company and LA County would return to the Superior Court to demonstrate compliance with and seek discharge of the Writ, and further litigation could challenge the re-entitlement.

The outcome of these other proceedings is not predictable. However, based on current circumstances, the Company believes that the ultimate resolution of these other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, either individually or in the aggregate.