NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1. — DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Getty Realty Corp. (together with its subsidiaries, unless otherwise indicated or except where the context otherwise requires, “we,” “us” or “our”) is the leading publicly-traded real estate investment trust (“REIT”) in the United States specializing in the ownership, leasing and financing of convenience store and gasoline station properties. As of September 30, 2018, we owned 861 properties and leased 77 properties from third-party landlords. These 938 properties are located in 30 states across the United States and Washington, D.C. Our properties are operated under a variety of nationally recognized brands including 76, BP, Citgo, Conoco, Exxon, Getty, Gulf, Mobil, Shell, Sunoco and Valero. Our company was originally founded in 1955 and is headquartered in Jericho, New York.

NOTE 2. — ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presentation

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Getty Realty Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). We do not distinguish our principal business or our operations on a geographical basis for purposes of measuring performance. We manage and evaluate our operations as a single segment. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Certain reclassifications have been made to prior period amounts in order to conform to current period presentation.

Unaudited, Interim Consolidated Financial Statements

The consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in our opinion, reflect all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) necessary for a fair statement of the results for the periods presented. These statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Use of Estimates, Judgments and Assumptions

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with GAAP, which requires management to make estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported. Estimates, judgments and assumptions underlying the accompanying consolidated financial statements include, but are not limited to, real estate, receivables, deferred rent receivable, direct financing leases, depreciation and amortization, impairment of long-lived assets, environmental remediation costs, environmental remediation obligations, litigation, accrued liabilities, income taxes and the allocation of the purchase price of properties acquired to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. Application of these estimates and assumptions requires exercise of judgment as to future uncertainties and, as a result, actual results could differ materially from these estimates.

Real Estate

Real estate assets are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. For acquisitions of real estate which are accounted for as business combinations, we estimate the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant” and identified intangible assets and liabilities (consisting of leasehold interests, above-market and below-market leases, in-place leases and tenant relationships) and assumed debt. Based on these estimates, we allocate the estimated fair value to the applicable assets and liabilities. Fair value is determined based on an exit price approach, which contemplates the price that would be received from the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. We expense transaction costs associated with business combinations in the period incurred. Acquisitions of real estate which do not meet the definition of a business are accounted for as asset acquisitions. The accounting model for asset acquisitions is similar to the accounting model for business combinations except that the acquisition costs are capitalized and allocated to the individual assets acquired and liabilities assumed on a relative fair value basis. See Note 11 for additional information regarding property acquisitions.

We capitalize direct costs, including costs such as construction costs and professional services, and indirect costs associated with the development and construction of real estate assets while substantive activities are ongoing to prepare the assets for their intended use. The capitalization period begins when development activities are underway and ends when it is determined that the asset is substantially complete and ready for its intended use.

We evaluate the held for sale classification of our real estate as of the end of each quarter. Assets that are classified as held for sale are recorded at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell.

4

When real estate assets are sold or retired, the cost and related accumulated depreciation and amortization is eliminated from the respective accounts and any gain or loss is credited or charged to income. We evaluate real estate sale transactions where we provide seller financing to determine sale and gain recognition in accordance with GAAP. Expenditures for maintenance and repairs are charged to income when incurred.

Direct Financing Leases

Income under direct financing leases is included in revenues from rental properties and is recognized over the lease terms using the effective interest rate method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties. The investments in direct financing leases are increased for interest income earned and amortized over the life of the leases and reduced by the receipt of lease payments. We consider direct financing leases to be past-due or delinquent when a contractually required payment is not remitted in accordance with the provisions of the underlying agreement. We evaluate each account individually and set up an allowance when, based upon current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the existing contractual terms and the amount can be reasonably estimated.

We review our direct financing leases at least annually to determine whether there has been an other-than-temporary decline in the current estimate of residual value of the property. The residual value is our estimate of what we could realize upon the sale of the property at the end of the lease term, based on market information and third-party estimates where available. If this review indicates that a decline in residual value has occurred that is other-than-temporary, we recognize an impairment charge. There were no impairments of any of our direct financing leases during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017.

When we enter into a contract to sell properties that are recorded as direct financing leases, we evaluate whether we believe that it is probable that the disposition will occur. If we determine that the disposition is probable and therefore the property’s holding period is reduced, we record an allowance for credit losses to reflect the change in the estimate of the undiscounted future rents. Accordingly, the net investment balance is written down to fair value.

Notes and Mortgages Receivable

Notes and mortgages receivable consists of loans originated by us in conjunction with property dispositions and funding provided to tenants in conjunction with property acquisitions and capital improvements. Notes and mortgages receivable are recorded at stated principal amounts. We evaluate the collectability of both interest and principal on each loan to determine whether it is impaired. A loan is considered to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due under the existing contractual terms. When a loan is considered to be impaired, the amount of the loss is calculated by comparing the recorded investment to the fair value determined by discounting the expected future cash flows at the loan’s effective interest rate or to the fair value of the underlying collateral, if the loan is collateralized. Interest income on performing loans is accrued as earned. Interest income on impaired loans is recognized on a cash basis. We do not provide for an additional allowance for loan losses based on the grouping of loans, as we believe that the characteristics of the loans are not sufficiently similar to allow an evaluation of these loans as a group for a possible loan loss allowance. As such, all of our loans are evaluated individually for impairment purposes. There were no impairments related to our notes and mortgages receivable during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017.

Revenue Recognition and Deferred Rent Receivable

On January 1, 2018, we adopted ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), (“Topic 606”) using the modified retrospective method applying it to any open contracts as of January 1, 2018. The new guidance provides a unified model to determine how revenue is recognized. To determine the proper amount of revenue to be recognized, we perform the following steps: (i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations within the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) a performance obligation is satisfied. We concluded that our revenue consists of rental income from leasing arrangements, which is specifically excluded from the standard, and thus had no material impact on our consolidated financial statements or notes to our consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2018.

Minimum lease payments from operating leases are recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the leases. The cumulative difference between lease revenue recognized under this method and the contractual lease payment terms is recorded as deferred rent receivable on our consolidated balance sheets. We reserve for a portion of the recorded deferred rent receivable if circumstances indicate that a tenant will not make all of its contractual lease payments during the current lease term. We make estimates of the collectability of our accounts receivable related to revenue from rental properties. We analyze accounts receivable and historical bad debt levels, customer creditworthiness and current economic trends when evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for doubtful accounts. Additionally, with respect to tenants in bankruptcy, we estimate the expected recovery through bankruptcy claims and increase the allowance for amounts deemed uncollectible. If our assumptions regarding the collectability of accounts receivable prove incorrect, we could experience write-offs of the accounts receivable or deferred rent receivable in excess of our allowance for doubtful accounts.

5

The present value of the difference between the fair market rent and the contractual rent for above-market and below-market leases at the time properties are acquired is amortized into revenues from rental properties over the remaining terms of the in-place leases. Lease termination fees are recognized as other income when earned upon the termi nation of a tenant’s lease and relinquishment of space in which we have no further obligation to the tenant.

The sales of nonfinancial assets, such as real estate, are to be recognized when control of the asset transfers to the buyer, which will occur when the buyer has the ability to direct the use of or obtain substantially all of the remaining benefits from the asset. This generally occurs when the transaction closes and consideration is exchanged for control of the property. During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we disposed of six properties , in separate transactions, which resulted in an aggregate gain of $3,665,000 , included in gain on dispositions of real estate, on our consolidated statements of operations. We also received funds from a property condemnation resulting in a loss of $29,000, included in gain on dispositions of real estate on our consolidated statements of operations.

Impairment of Long-Lived Assets

Assets are written down to fair value when events and circumstances indicate that the assets might be impaired and the projected undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than the carrying amount of those assets. Assets held for disposal are written down to fair value less estimated disposition costs.

We recorded impairment charges aggregating $832,000 and $4,808,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, and $2,393,000 and $7,044,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively, in continuing and discontinued operations. Our estimated fair values, as they relate to property carrying values, were primarily based upon (i) estimated sales prices from third-party offers based on signed contracts, letters of intent or indicative bids, for which we do not have access to the unobservable inputs used to determine these estimated fair values, and/or consideration of the amount that currently would be required to replace the asset, as adjusted for obsolescence (this method was used to determine $2,531,000 of the $4,808,000 in impairments recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2018) and (ii) discounted cash flow models (this method was used to determine $104,000 of the $4,808,000 in impairments recognized during the nine months ended September 30, 2018). During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we recorded $2,173,000 of the $4,808,000 in impairments recognized due to the accumulation of asset retirement costs as a result of changes in estimates associated with our estimated environmental liabilities which increased the carrying values of certain properties in excess of their fair values.

The estimated fair value of real estate is based on the price that would be received from the sale of the property in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. In general, we consider multiple internal valuation techniques when measuring the fair value of a property, all of which are based on unobservable inputs and assumptions that are classified within Level 3 of the Fair Value Hierarchy. These unobservable inputs include assumed holding periods ranging up to 15 years, assumed average rent increases of 2.0% annually, income capitalized at a rate of 8.0% and cash flows discounted at a rate of 7.0%. These assessments have a direct impact on our net income because recording an impairment loss results in an immediate negative adjustment to net income. The evaluation of anticipated cash flows is highly subjective and is based in part on assumptions regarding future rental rates and operating expenses that could differ materially from actual results in future periods. Where properties held for use have been identified as having a potential for sale, additional judgments are required related to the determination as to the appropriate period over which the projected undiscounted cash flows should include the operating cash flows and the amount included as the estimated residual value. This requires significant judgment. In some cases, the results of whether impairment is indicated are sensitive to changes in assumptions input into the estimates, including the holding period until expected sale.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

All of our financial instruments are reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets at amounts which, in our estimation based upon an interpretation of available market information and valuation methodologies, reasonably approximate their fair values, except those separately disclosed in the notes below.

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates of fair value that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and revenues and expenses during the period reported using a hierarchy (the “Fair Value Hierarchy”) that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure the fair value. The Fair Value Hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The levels of the Fair Value Hierarchy are as follows: “Level 1” – inputs that reflect unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that we have the ability to access at the measurement date; “Level 2” – inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability either directly or indirectly, including inputs in markets that are not considered to be active; and “Level 3” – inputs that are unobservable. Certain types of assets and liabilities are recorded at fair value either on a recurring or non-recurring basis. Assets required or elected to be marked-to-market and reported at fair value every reporting period are valued on a recurring basis. Other assets not required to be recorded at fair value every period

6

may be recorded at fair value if a specific provision or other impairment is recorded within the period to ma rk the carrying value of the asset to market as of the reporting date. Such assets are valued on a non-recurring basis.

Environmental Remediation Obligations

We record the fair value of a liability for an environmental remediation obligation as an asset and liability when there is a legal obligation associated with the retirement of a tangible long-lived asset and the liability can be reasonably estimated. Environmental remediation obligations are estimated based on the level and impact of contamination at each property. The accrued liability is the aggregate of our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability. The accrued liability is net of estimated recoveries from state underground storage tank (“UST”) remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. Net environmental liabilities are currently measured based on their expected future cash flows which have been adjusted for inflation and discounted to present value. We accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to other potentially responsible parties if it becomes probable that the other parties will not pay their environmental remediation obligations.

Income Taxes

We and our subsidiaries file a consolidated federal income tax return. Effective January 1, 2001, we elected to qualify, and believe that we are operating so as to qualify, as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, we generally will not be subject to federal income tax on qualifying REIT income, provided that distributions to our stockholders equal at least the amount of our taxable income as defined under the Internal Revenue Code. We accrue for uncertain tax matters when appropriate. The accrual for uncertain tax positions is adjusted as circumstances change and as the uncertainties become more clearly defined, such as when audits are settled or exposures expire. Tax returns for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017, and tax returns which will be filed for the year ended 2018, remain open to examination by federal and state tax jurisdictions under the respective statutes of limitations.

New Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 amends the existing accounting standards for lease accounting, including requiring lessees to recognize most leases on their balance sheets. Under ASU 2016-02 lessor accounting will remain similar to lessor accounting under previous GAAP, while aligning with the FASB’s new revenue recognition guidance. ASU 2016-02 is effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those years, beginning January 1, 2019. Early adoption of ASU 2016-02 is permitted. The standard requires a modified retrospective transition approach for all leases existing at, or entered into after, the date of initial application, with an option to use certain transition relief. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-10,  Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases, to clarify how to apply certain aspects of the new leases standard. In July 2018, the FASB also issued ASU 2018-11,  Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements, to give entities another option for transition and to provide lessors with a practical expedient to reduce the cost and complexity of implementing the new standard. The transition option allows entities to not apply the new leases standard in the comparative periods they present in their financial statements in the year of adoption. The above ASUs are effective for fiscal years, and for interim periods within those years, beginning January 1, 2019. Early adoption is permitted. We plan to adopt these standards on January 1, 2019, and are continuing to evaluate the impact of their adoption on our consolidated financial statements. However, we currently believe that the adoption of the above ASUs will not have a material impact for operating leases where we are a lessor and we will continue to record revenues from rental properties for our operating leases on a straight-line basis. However, for leases where we are a lessee we expect to record a lease liability and a right of use asset on our consolidated financial statements at fair value upon adoption. The lease liability and right-of-use asset are to be carried at the present value of remaining expected future lease payments.

On June 16, 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurements of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments (“ASU 2016-13”) to amend the accounting for credit losses for certain financial instruments. Under the new guidance, an entity recognizes its estimate of expected credit losses as an allowance, which the FASB believes will result in more timely recognition of such losses. ASU 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating the impact that the adoption of ASU 2016-13 will have on our consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments (“ASU 2016-15”). ASU 2016-15 is intended to clarify the presentation of cash receipts and payments in specific situations. The amendments in this update were effective for financial statements issued for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those annual periods. Effective January 1, 2018, we adopted ASU 2016-15. The adoption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements or notes to our consolidated financial statements.

On February 22, 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-05, Other Income—Gains and Losses from the Derecognition of Nonfinancial Assets (Subtopic 610-20), Clarifying the Scope of Asset Derecognition Guidance and Accounting for Partial Sales of

7

Nonfinancial Assets (“ASU 2017-05”) to provide guidance for recognizing gains and losses from the transfer of nonfinancial assets and in-substance non-financial assets in contracts with non-customers, unless other specific guidance applies. ASU 2017-05 requires a company to derecognize nonfinancial assets once it transfers control of a distinct nonfinancial asset or distinct in substance nonfinancial asset. As a result of the new guidance, the guidance specific to real estate sales in ASC 36 0-20 w as eliminated. As such, sales and partial sales of real estate assets will now be subject to the same derecognition model as all other nonfinancial assets. ASU 2017-05 was effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including inte rim periods within that reporting period. Effective January 1, 2018, we adopted ASU 2017-05 on a modified retrospective basis. Upon adoption, we apply the guidance to prospective disposals of nonfinancial assets within the scope of Subtopic 610-20. The ado ption of this guidance did not have an impact on our consolidated financial statements or notes to our consolidated financial statements.

NOTE 3. — LEASES

As of September 30, 2018, we owned 861 properties and leased 77 properties from third-party landlords. These 938 properties are located in 30 states across the United States and Washington, D.C. Substantially all of our properties are leased on a triple-net basis primarily to petroleum distributors, convenience store retailers and, to a lesser extent, individual operators. Generally, our tenants supply fuel and either operate our properties directly or sublet our properties to operators who operate their convenience stores, gasoline stations, automotive repair service facilities or other businesses at our properties. Our triple-net lease tenants are responsible for the payment of all taxes, maintenance, repairs, insurance and other operating expenses relating to our properties, and are also responsible for environmental contamination occurring during the terms of their leases and in certain cases also for environmental contamination that existed before their leases commenced. See Note 6 for additional information regarding environmental obligations.

Substantially all of our tenants’ financial results depend on the sale of refined petroleum products, convenience store sales or rental income from their subtenants. As a result, our tenants’ financial results are highly dependent on the performance of the petroleum marketing industry, which is highly competitive and subject to volatility. During the terms of our leases, we monitor the credit quality of our triple-net tenants by reviewing their published credit rating, if available, reviewing publicly available financial statements, or reviewing financial or other operating statements which are delivered to us pursuant to applicable lease agreements, monitoring news reports regarding our tenants and their respective businesses, and monitoring the timeliness of lease payments and the performance of other financial covenants under their leases.

Revenues from rental properties were $29,570,000 and $86,877,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, and $24,913,000 and $73,174,000 for the and three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively. Rental income contractually due from our tenants included in revenues from rental properties was $29,083,000 and $85,009,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, and $24,560,000 and $71,875,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively.

In accordance with GAAP, we recognize rental revenue in amounts which vary from the amount of rent contractually due during the periods presented. As a result, revenues from rental properties include non-cash adjustments recorded for deferred rental revenue due to the recognition of rental income on a straight-line basis over the current lease term, the net amortization of above-market and below-market leases, rental income recorded under direct financing leases using the effective interest method which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the net investments in the leased properties and the amortization of deferred lease incentives (the “Revenue Recognition Adjustments”). Revenue Recognition Adjustments included in revenues from rental properties were $487,000 and $1,868,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, and $353,000 and $1,299,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively. We reserve for a portion of the recorded deferred rent receivable if circumstances indicate that a tenant will not make all of its contractual lease payments during the current lease term. Our assessments and assumptions regarding the recoverability of the deferred rent receivable are reviewed on an ongoing basis and such assessments and assumptions are subject to change. There were no deferred rent receivable reserves as of September 30, 2018 and 2017.

Tenant reimbursements, which consist of real estate taxes and other municipal charges paid by us which were reimbursable by our tenants pursuant to the terms of triple-net lease agreements, were $4,332,000 and $11,861,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, respectively, and $3,799,000 and $10,717,000 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, respectively.

We incurred $258,000 and $42,000 of lease origination costs for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as amortization expense in our consolidated statements of operations over the terms of the various leases.

The components of the $87,376,000 investment in direct financing leases as of September 30, 2018, are minimum lease payments receivable of $144,812,000 plus unguaranteed estimated residual value of $13,979,000 less unearned income of $71,415,000. The components of the $89,587,000 investment in direct financing leases as of December 31, 2017, are minimum lease payments receivable of $154,441,000 plus unguaranteed estimated residual value of $13,979,000 less unearned income of $78,833,000.

8

Major Tenants

As of September 30, 2018, we had three significant tenants by revenue:

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc.

Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. (“Marketing”) was our largest tenant from 1997 until 2012, leasing substantially all of our properties acquired or leased prior to 1997 under a master lease. Our master lease with Marketing was terminated in April 2012 as a consequence of Marketing’s bankruptcy, at which time we either sold or released these properties. As of September 30, 2018, 377 of the properties we own or lease were previously leased to Marketing, of which 332 properties are subject to long-term triple-net leases with petroleum distributors in 14 separate property portfolios and 29 properties are leased as single unit triple-net leases. The leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing are unitary triple-net lease agreements, generally with an initial term of 15 years and options for successive renewal terms of up to 20 years. Rent is scheduled to increase at varying intervals during both the initial and renewal terms of the leases. Several of the leases provide for additional rent based on the aggregate volume of fuel sold. In addition, the majority of the leases require the tenants to make capital expenditures at our properties, substantially all of which are related to the replacement of USTs that are owned by our tenants. As of September 30, 2018, we have a remaining commitment to fund up to $7,852,000 in the aggregate with our tenants for our portion of such capital expenditures. Our commitment provides us with the option to either reimburse our tenants or to offset rent when these capital expenditures are made. This deferred expense is recognized on a straight-line basis as a reduction of rental revenue in our consolidated statements of operations over the life of the various leases.

As part of the triple-net leases for properties previously leased to Marketing, we transferred title of the USTs to our tenants, and the obligation to pay for the retirement and decommissioning or removal of USTs at the end of their useful lives, or earlier if circumstances warranted, was fully or partially transferred to our new tenants. We remain contingently liable for this obligation in the event that our tenants do not satisfy their responsibilities. Accordingly, through September 30, 2018, we removed $13,813,000 of asset retirement obligations and $10,808,000 of net asset retirement costs related to USTs from our balance sheet. The cumulative change of $1,809,000 (net of accumulated amortization of $1,196,000) is recorded as deferred rental revenue and will be recognized on a straight-line basis as additional revenues from rental properties over the terms of the various leases.

NOTE 4. — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Credit Risk

In order to minimize our exposure to credit risk associated with financial instruments, we place our temporary cash investments, if any, with high credit quality institutions. Temporary cash investments, if any, are currently held in an overnight bank time deposit with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. and these balances, at times, may exceed federally insurable limits.

Legal Proceedings

We are subject to various legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business. As of September 30 , 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had accrued $12,311,000 for certain of these matters which we believe were appropriate based on information then currently available. We have recorded provisions aggregating $26,000 and credits aggregating $106,000 for environmental litigation accruals for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, for certain of these matters. We are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty for these matters. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental litigation accruals.

9

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River , our MTBE litigations in the states of New Jersey , Pennsylvania and Maryland , and our lawsuit with the State of New York pertaining to a property formerly owned by us in Uniondale, New York, in particular, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price. During the nine months ended September   30 , 2018, we received $147,000 for former legal litigation settlements.

Matters related to our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal and the Lower Passaic River

In September 2003, we received a directive (the “Directive”) issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) under the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Directive indicated that we are one of approximately 66 potentially responsible parties for alleged natural resource damages resulting from the discharges of hazardous substances along the Lower Passaic River (the “Lower Passaic River”). The Directive provides, among other things, that the named recipients must conduct an assessment of the natural resources that have been injured by discharges into the Lower Passaic River and must implement interim compensatory restoration for the injured natural resources. The NJDEP alleges that our liability arises from alleged discharges originating from our former Newark, New Jersey Terminal site (which was sold in October 2013). We responded to the Directive by asserting that we are not liable. There has been no material activity and/or communications by the NJDEP with respect to the Directive since early after its issuance.

In May 2007, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) with over 70 parties to perform a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) for a 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The RI/FS is intended to address the investigation and evaluation of alternative remedial actions with respect to alleged damages to the Lower Passaic River. Most of the parties to the AOC, including us, are also members of a Cooperating Parties Group (“CPG”). The CPG agreed to an interim allocation formula for purposes of allocating the costs to complete the RI/FS among its members, with the understanding that this agreed-upon allocation formula is not binding on the parties in terms of any potential liability for the costs to remediate the Lower Passaic River. The CPG submitted to the EPA its draft RI/FS in 2015. The draft RI/FS set forth various alternatives for remediating the entire 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River, and provides that cost estimate for the preferred remedial action presented therein is in the range of approximately $483,000,000 to $725,000,000. The EPA has provided comments to the draft RI/FS to the CPG, some of which require proposed additional work to finalize the RI/FS. The CPG is evaluating the EPA’s comments and engaging the EPA in discussions to address the EPA’s comments and to determine a schedule for the completion of the RI/FS.

In addition to the RI/FS activities, other actions relating to the investigation and/or remediation of the Lower Passaic River have proceeded as follows. First, in June 2012, certain members of the CPG entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“10.9 AOC”) effective June 18, 2012, to perform certain remediation activities, including removal and capping of sediments at the river mile 10.9 area and certain testing. The EPA also issued a Unilateral Order to Occidental Chemical Corporation (“Occidental”) directing Occidental to participate and contribute to the cost of the river mile 10.9 work. Concurrent with the CPG’s work on the RI/FS, on April 11, 2014, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study (“FFS”) with proposed remedial alternatives to remediate the lower 8-miles of the 17-mile stretch of the Lower Passaic River. The FFS was subject to public comments and objections, and on March 4, 2016, the EPA issued its Record of Decision (“ROD”) for the lower 8-miles selecting a remedy that involves bank-to-bank dredging and installing an engineered cap with an estimated cost of $1,380,000,000. On March 31, 2016, we and more than 100 other potentially responsible parties received from the EPA a “Notice of Potential Liability and Commencement of Negotiations for Remedial Design” (“Notice”), which informed the recipients that the EPA intends to seek an Administrative Order on Consent and Settlement Agreement with Occidental for remedial design of the remedy selected in the ROD, after which the EPA plans to begin negotiations with “major” potentially responsible parties for implementation and/or payment of the selected remedy. The Notice also stated that the EPA believes that some of the potentially responsible parties and other parties not yet identified as potentially responsible parties will be eligible for a cash out settlement with the EPA. On October 5, 2016, the EPA announced that it had entered into a settlement agreement with Occidental which requires that Occidental perform the remedial design (which is expected to take four years to complete) for the remedy selected for the lower 8-miles of the Lower Passaic River.

On June 16, 2016, Maxus Energy Corporation and Tierra Solutions, Inc., who have contractual liability to Occidental for Occidental’s potential liability related to the Lower Passaic River, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In the Chapter 11 proceedings, YPF SA, Maxus and Tierra’s corporate parent, sought bankruptcy approval of a settlement under which YPF would pay $130,000,000 to the bankruptcy estate in exchange for a release in favor of Maxus, Tierra, YPF and YPF’s affiliates of Maxus and Tierra’s contractual environmental liability to Occidental. We and the CPG filed proofs of claims for costs incurred by the CPG relating to the lower Passaic River.

On April 19, 2017, Maxus, Tierra and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”), together with the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, of which the CPG is a member, filed an Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation (the “Chapter 11 Plan”) in the Chapter 11 proceedings, which has been confirmed by order of the bankruptcy court, having an effective date of July 14, 2017 (the “Effective Date”). The Chapter 11 Plan provides for, among other things, the creation of a Liquidating Trust to liquidate and distribute from available assets certain allowed claims pursuant to the procedures set forth therein. Under the terms of the Chapter 11 Plan, the

10

CPG’s proof of claim , which includes past costs incurred in the performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work, is classified as an Allowed Class 4 Claim in the approximate amount of $14,300,000. To the extent that the CPG receives any distributions from the Liquidating Tr ust with respect to its Allowed Class 4 Claim, we would be entitled to seek reimbursement of our pro-rata share of said distribution for past costs we incurred with respect to performance of the RI/FS and River Mile 10.9 work. The Chapter 11 Plan also prov ides for a Mutual Contribution Release Agreement under which claims for contribution relating to liabilities associated with the Lower Passaic River and incurred prior to the Effective Date are mutually released by and among the parties identified therein. We are one of 59 parties (the “Released Parties”) that entered into the Mutual Contribution Release Agreement, pursuant to which (i) the Debtors release the Released Parties from any contribution claim they may have, (ii) Occidental releases the Released Parties for the amounts itemized in Occidental’s Class 4 Claim, and (iii) the Released Parties release the Debtors and Occidental for the amounts itemized in the CPG’s Class 4 Claim. The Mutual Contribution Release Agreement does not reduce or affect the C PG’s right to receive distributions from the Liquidating Trust on account of the CPG’s Class 4 Claim or our pro-rata share of any such distributions, nor does it affect our right to assert any future claims against Occidental for costs that we may incur re lated to the remediation of the Lower Passaic River after the Effective Date.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA advised the recipients of the Notice that it would be entering into cash out settlements with 20 potentially responsible parties to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. The letter also stated that the EPA would begin a process for identifying other potentially responsible parties for negotiation of cash out settlements to resolve their alleged liability for the lower 8-mile remedial action that is the subject of the ROD. We were not included in the initial group of 20 parties identified by the EPA for cash out settlements. In January 2018, the EPA published a notice of its intent to enter into a final settlement agreement with 15 of the identified 20 parties to resolve their respective alleged liability for the ROD work, each for a payment to the EPA in the amount of $280,600. The EPA has also been engaged in discussions with the remaining recipients of the Notice regarding a proposed framework for an allocation process that will lead to offers of cash-out settlements to certain additional parties and a consent decree in which parties that are not offered a cash-out settlement will agree to perform the lower 8-mile remedial action, in which we are participating. The EPA-commenced allocation process is scheduled to conclude by mid-2019.

On June 30, 2018, Occidental filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey seeking cost recovery and contribution under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) for its alleged expenses with respect to the investigation, design, and anticipated implementation of the remedy for the lower 8-miles of the Passaic River. The complaint lists over 120 defendants, including us, many of which were also named in the NJDEP’s 2003 Directive and the EPA’s 2016 Notice. We do not know whether this new complaint will impact the EPA’s allocation process or the ultimate outcome of the matter. We intend to defend the claims consistent with our defenses in the related proceedings.

Many uncertainties remain regarding how the EPA intends to implement the ROD. We anticipate that performance of the EPA’s selected remedy will be subject to future negotiations, potential enforcement proceedings and/or possible litigation. The RI/FS, AOC, 10.9 AOC and Notice do not obligate us to fund or perform remedial action contemplated by either the ROD or RI/FS and do not resolve liability issues for remedial work or the restoration of or compensation for alleged natural resource damages to the Lower Passaic River, which are not known at this time. Our ultimate liability, if any, in the pending and possible future proceedings pertaining to the Lower Passaic River is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of New Jersey

We are defending against a lawsuit brought by various governmental agencies of the State of New Jersey, including the NJDEP, alleging various theories of liability due to contamination of groundwater with methyl tertiary butyl ether (a fuel derived from methanol, commonly referred to as “MTBE”) involving multiple locations throughout the State of New Jersey (the “New Jersey MDL Proceedings”). The complaint names as defendants approximately 50 petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The State of New Jersey is seeking reimbursement of significant clean-up and remediation costs arising out of the alleged release of MTBE containing gasoline in the State of New Jersey and is asserting various natural resource damage claims as well as liability against the owners and operators of gasoline station properties from which the releases occurred. The majority of the named defendants have already settled their cases with the State of New Jersey. A portion of the case (“bellwether” trials) has been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for pre-trial proceedings and trial, although a trial date has not yet been set. We continue to engage in settlement negotiations and a dialogue with the plaintiffs’ counsel to educate them on the unique role of the Company and our business as compared to other defendants in the litigation. Although the ultimate outcome of the New Jersey MDL Proceedings cannot be ascertained at this time, we believe that it is probable that this litigation will be resolved in a manner that is unfavorable to us. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount accrued with certainty for the New Jersey MDL Proceedings as we do not believe that plaintiffs’ settlement proposal is realistic and there remains uncertainty as to the allegations in this case as they relate to us, our defenses to the claims, our rights to indemnification or contribution from other parties and the aggregate possible amount of damages for which we may be held liable. It is possible that losses related to the New Jersey MDL Proceedings in excess of the amounts accrued as of September 30, 2018, could

11

cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

MTBE Litigation – State of Pennsylvania

On July 7, 2014, our subsidiary, Getty Properties Corp., was served with a complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “State”) in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County relating to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Pennsylvania. The complaint names us and more than 50 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of “defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices and acts in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE.” The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State to detect, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violation of consumer protection law.

The case was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, but was removed by defendants to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and then transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York so that it may be managed as part of the ongoing MTBE MDL proceedings. Plaintiffs have recently filed a second amended complaint naming additional defendants and adding factual allegations intended to bolster their claims against the defendants. We have joined with other defendants in the filing of a motion to dismiss the claims against us. This motion is pending with the Court. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

MTBE Litigation – State of Maryland

On December 17, 2017, the State of Maryland, by and through the Attorney General on behalf of the Maryland Department of Environment and the Maryland Department of Health (the “State of Maryland”), filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City related to alleged statewide MTBE contamination in Maryland. The complaint was served upon us on January 19, 2018. The complaint names us and more than 60 other defendants, including petroleum refiners, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of MTBE or gasoline containing MTBE. The complaint seeks compensation for natural resource damages and for injuries sustained as a result of the defendants’ unfair and deceptive trade practices in the marketing of MTBE and gasoline containing MTBE. The plaintiffs also seek to recover costs paid or incurred by the State of Maryland to detect, investigate, treat and remediate MTBE from public and private water wells and groundwater, punitive damages and the award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. The plaintiffs assert causes of action against all defendants based on multiple theories, including strict liability – defective design; strict liability – failure to warn; strict liability for abnormally dangerous activity; public nuisance; negligence; trespass; and violations of Titles 4, 7 and 9 of the Maryland Environmental Code.

On February 14, 2018, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. It is unclear whether the matter will ultimately be removed to the MTBE MDL proceedings or remain in federal court in Maryland. We intend to defend vigorously the claims made against us. Our ultimate liability, if any, in this proceeding is uncertain and subject to numerous contingencies which cannot be predicted and the outcome of which are not yet known.

Uniondale, New York Litigation

In September 2004, the State of New York commenced an action against us, United Gas Corp., Costa Gas Station, Inc., Vincent Costa, The Ingraham Bedell Corporation, Richard Berger and Exxon Mobil Corporation in New York Supreme Court in Albany County seeking recovery for reimbursement of investigation and remediation costs claimed to have been incurred by the New York Environmental Protection and Spill Compensation Fund relating to contamination it alleges emanated from various gasoline station properties located in the same vicinity in Uniondale, N.Y., including a site formerly owned by us and at which a petroleum release and cleanup occurred. The complaint also seeks future costs for remediation, as well as interest and penalties. We have served an answer to the complaint denying responsibility. In 2007, the State of New York commenced action against Shell Oil Company, Shell Oil Products Company, Motiva Enterprises, LLC, and related parties, in the New York Supreme Court, Albany County seeking basically the same relief sought in the action involving us. We have also filed a third-party complaint against Hess Corporation and certain individual defendants based on alleged contribution to the contamination that is the subject of the State’s claims arising from a petroleum discharge at a gasoline station up-gradient from the site formerly owned by us. In 2016, the various actions filed by the State of New York and our third-party actions were consolidated for discovery proceedings and trial. Discovery in this case is in later stages and, as it nears completion, a schedule for trial will be established. We are unable to estimate the range of loss in excess of the amount we have accrued for this lawsuit. It is possible that losses related to this case, in excess of the amounts accrued, as of September 30, 2018, could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

12

Credit Agreement

On June 2, 2015, we entered into a $225,000,000 senior unsecured credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”) with a group of banks led by Bank of America, N.A. (the “Bank Syndicate”). The Credit Agreement consisted of a $175,000,000 unsecured revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Facility”) and a $50,000,000 unsecured term loan (the “Term Loan”).

On March 23, 2018, we entered in to an amended and restated credit agreement (as amended, as described below, the “Restated Credit Agreement”) amending and restating our Credit Agreement. Pursuant to the Restated Credit Agreement, we (a) increased the borrowing capacity under the Revolving Facility from $175,000,000 to $250,000,000, (b) extended the maturity date of the Revolving Facility from June 2018 to March 2022, (c) extended the maturity date of the Term Loan from June 2020 to March 2023 and (d) amended certain financial covenants and provisions.

Subject to the terms of the Restated Credit Agreement and our continued compliance with its provisions, we have the option to (a) extend the term of the Revolving Facility for one additional year to March 2023 and (b) request that the lenders approve an increase of up to $300,000,000 in the amount of the Revolving Facility and/or the Term Loan to $600,000,000 in the aggregate.

The Restated Credit Agreement incurs interest and fees at various rates based on our total indebtedness to total asset value ratio at the end of each quarterly reporting period. The Revolving Facility permits borrowings at an interest rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 0.50% to 1.30% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 1.50% to 2.30%. The annual commitment fee on the undrawn funds under the Revolving Facility is 0.15% to 0.25%. The Term Loan bears interest at a rate equal to the sum of a base rate plus a margin of 0.45% to 1.25% or a LIBOR rate plus a margin of 1.45% to 2.25%. The Term Loan does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance prior to its maturity.

On September 19, 2018, we entered into an amendment (the “Amendment”) of our Restated Credit Agreement. The Amendment modifies the Restated Credit Agreement to, among other things: (i) reflect our previously announced entrance on June 21, 2018, into (a) an amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement with The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) and certain of its affiliates and (b) a note purchase and guarantee agreement with the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“MetLife”) and certain of its affiliates; and (ii) permit borrowings under each of the Revolving Facility and the Term Loan at three different interest rates, including a rate based on the LIBOR Daily Floating Rate (as defined in the Amendment) plus the Applicable Rate (as defined in the Amendment) for such facility.

Senior Unsecured Notes

On June 21, 2018, we entered into a third amended and restated note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement”) amending and restating our existing senior note purchase agreement with Prudential and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement, we agreed that our (a) 6.0% Series A Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2021, in the original aggregate principal amount of $100,000,000 (the “Series A Notes”), (b) 5.35% Series B Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 2, 2023, in the original aggregate principal amount of $75,000,000 (the “Series B Notes”) and (c) 4.75% Series C Guaranteed Senior Notes due February 25, 2025, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series C Notes”) that were outstanding under the existing senior note purchase agreement would continue to remain outstanding under the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and we authorized and issued our 5.47% Series D Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series D Notes” and, together with the Series A Notes, Series B Notes and Series C Notes, the “Notes”). The Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Notes prior to their respective maturities.

13

On June 21, 2018, we entered into a note purchase and guarantee agreement (the “MetLife Note Purchase Agreement”) with MetLife and certain of its affiliates. Pursuant to the MetLife Note Purch ase Agreement, we authorized and issued our 5.47% Series E Guaranteed Senior Notes due June 21, 2028, in the aggregate principal amount of $50,000,000 (the “Series E Notes”). The MetLife Note Purchase Agreement does not provide for scheduled reductions in the principal balance of the Series E Notes prior to its maturity .

Covenants

The Restated Credit Agreement, the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement contain customary financial covenants such as leverage, coverage ratios and minimum tangible net worth, as well as limitations on restricted payments, which may limit our ability to incur additional debt or pay dividends. The Restated Credit Agreement, the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement also contain customary events of default, including cross defaults to each other, change of control and failure to maintain REIT status (provided that the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement require a mandatory offer to prepay the notes upon a change in control in lieu of a change of control event of default). Any event of default, if not cured or waived in a timely manner, would increase by 200 basis points (2.00%) the interest rate we pay under the Restated Credit Agreement, the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement and could result in the acceleration of our indebtedness under the Restated Credit Agreement, the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement. We may be prohibited from drawing funds under the Revolving Facility if there is any event or condition that constitutes an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement or that, with the giving of any notice, the passage of time, or both, would be an event of default under the Restated Credit Agreement.

As of September 30, 2018, we are in compliance with all of the material terms of the Restated Credit Agreement, the Third Restated Prudential Note Purchase Agreement and the MetLife Note Purchase Agreement, including the various financial covenants described herein.

NOTE 6. — ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS

We are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, including matters relating to the protection of the environment such as the remediation of known contamination and the retirement and decommissioning or removal of long-lived assets including buildings containing hazardous materials, USTs and other equipment. Environmental costs are principally attributable to remediation costs which are incurred for, among other things, removing USTs, excavation of contaminated soil and water, installing, operating, maintaining and decommissioning remediation systems, monitoring contamination and governmental agency compliance reporting required in connection with contaminated properties. We seek reimbursement from state UST remediation funds related to these environmental costs where available. The estimated future costs for known environmental remediation requirements are accrued when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The accrued liability is the aggregate of our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds.

In July 2012, we purchased a 10-year pollution legal liability insurance policy covering substantially all of our properties at that time for preexisting unknown environmental liabilities and new environmental events. The policy has a $50,000,000 aggregate limit and is subject to various self-insured retentions and other conditions and limitations. Our intention in purchasing this policy was to obtain protection predominantly for significant events. No assurances can be given that we will obtain a net financial benefit from this investment. In addition to the environmental insurance policy purchased by the Company, we also took assignment of certain

14

environmental insurance policies, and rights to reimbursement for claims made thereunder, from Marketing, by order o f the U.S. Bankruptcy Court during Marketing’s bankruptcy proceedings. Under these assigned polices, we have received and expect to continue to receive reimbursement of certain remediation expenses for covered claims.

We enter into leases and various other agreements which contractually allocate responsibility between the parties for known and unknown environmental liabilities at or relating to the subject properties. We are contingently liable for these environmental obligations in the event that our tenant or other counterparty does not satisfy them. It is possible that our assumptions regarding the ultimate allocation method and share of responsibility that we used to allocate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in material adjustments to the amounts recorded for environmental litigation accruals and environmental remediation liabilities. We are required to accrue for environmental liabilities that we believe are allocable to others under our leases and other agreements if we determine that it is probable that our tenant or other counterparty will not meet its environmental obligations. We may ultimately be responsible to pay for environmental liabilities as the property owner if our tenant or other counterparty fails to pay them. We assess whether to accrue for environmental liabilities based upon relevant factors including our tenants’ histories of paying for such obligations, our assessment of their financial capability, and their intent to pay for such obligations. However, there can be no assurance that our assessments are correct or that our tenants who have paid their obligations in the past will continue to do so. The ultimate resolution of these matters could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

For substantially all of our triple-net leases, our tenants are contractually responsible for compliance with environmental laws and regulations, removal of USTs at the end of their lease term (the cost of which in certain cases is partially borne by us) and remediation of any environmental contamination that arises during the term of their tenancy. Under the terms of our leases covering properties previously leased to Marketing (substantially all of which commenced in 2012), we have agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination at the premises that was known at the time the lease commenced, and for environmental contamination discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first 10 years of the lease term (or a shorter period for a minority of such leases). After expiration of such 10-year (or, in certain cases, shorter) period, responsibility for all newly discovered contamination, even if it relates to periods prior to commencement of the lease, is contractually allocated to our tenant. Our tenants at properties previously leased to Marketing are in all cases responsible for the cost of any remediation of contamination that results from their use and occupancy of our properties. Under substantially all of our other triple-net leases, responsibility for remediation of all environmental contamination discovered during the term of the lease (including known and unknown contamination that existed prior to commencement of the lease) is the responsibility of our tenant.

We anticipate that a majority of the USTs at properties previously leased to Marketing will be replaced over the next several years because these USTs are either at or near the end of their useful lives. For long-term, triple-net leases covering sites previously leased to Marketing, our tenants are responsible for the cost of removal and replacement of USTs and for remediation of contamination found during such UST removal and replacement, unless such contamination was found during the first 10 years of the lease term and also existed prior to commencement of the lease. In those cases, we are responsible for costs associated with the remediation of such contamination. We have also agreed to be responsible for environmental contamination that existed prior to the sale of certain properties assuming the contamination is discovered (other than as a result of a voluntary site investigation) during the first five years after the sale of the properties. For properties that are vacant, we are responsible for costs associated with UST removals and for the cost of remediation of contamination found during the removal of USTs.

In the course of certain UST removals and replacements at properties previously leased to Marketing where we retained continuing responsibility for preexisting environmental obligations, previously unknown environmental contamination was and continues to be discovered. As a result, we have developed a reasonable estimate of fair value for the prospective future environmental liability resulting from preexisting unknown environmental contamination and have accrued for these estimated costs. These estimates are based primarily upon quantifiable trends which we believe allow us to make reasonable estimates of fair value for the future costs of environmental remediation resulting from the removal and replacement of USTs. Our accrual of the additional liability represents our estimate of the fair value of cost for each component of the liability, net of estimated recoveries from state UST remediation funds considering estimated recovery rates developed from prior experience with the funds. In arriving at our accrual, we analyzed the ages of USTs at properties where we would be responsible for preexisting contamination found within 10 years after commencement of a lease (for properties subject to long-term triple-net leases) or five years from a sale (for divested properties), and projected a cost to closure for new environmental contamination.

We measure our environmental remediation liabilities at fair value based on expected future net cash flows, adjusted for inflation (using a range of 2.0% to 2.75%), and then discount them to present value (using a range of 4.0% to 7.0%). We adjust our environmental remediation liabilities quarterly to reflect changes in projected expenditures, changes in present value due to the passage of time and reductions in estimated liabilities as a result of actual expenditures incurred during each quarter. As of September 30, 2018, we had accrued a total of $60,905,000 for our prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $15,839,000, which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental remediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $45,066,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination. As of December 31, 2017, we had accrued a total of $63,565,000 for our

15

prospective environmental remediation obligations. This accrual consisted of (a) $ 18 , 537 ,000, which was our estimate of reasonably estimable environmental re mediation liability, including obligations to remove USTs for which we are responsible, net of estimated recoveries and (b) $45,0 28 ,000 for future environmental liabilities related to preexisting unknown contamination.

Environmental liabilities are accreted for the change in present value due to the passage of time and, accordingly, $1,837,000 and $2,621,000 of net accretion expense was recorded for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, which is included in environmental expenses. In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, we recorded credits to environmental expenses, included in continuing and discontinued operations, aggregating $679,000 and $6,116,000, respectively, where decreases in estimated remediation costs exceeded the depreciated carrying value of previously capitalized asset retirement costs. Environmental expenses also include project management fees, legal fees and environmental litigation accruals.

During the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, we increased the carrying values of certain of our properties by $3,027,000 and $3,560,000, respectively, due to changes in estimated environmental remediation costs. The recognition and subsequent changes in estimates in environmental liabilities and the increase or decrease in carrying values of the properties are non-cash transactions which do not appear on the face of the consolidated statements of cash flows.

Capitalized asset retirement costs are being depreciated over the estimated remaining life of the UST, a 10-year period if the increase in carrying value is related to environmental remediation obligations or such shorter period if circumstances warrant, such as the remaining lease term for properties we lease from others. Depreciation and amortization expense related to capitalized asset retirement costs in our consolidated statements of operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, was $3,206,000 and $3,281,000, respectively. Capitalized asset retirement costs were $45,099,000 (consisting of $19,494,000 of known environmental liabilities and $25,605,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of September 30, 2018, and $45,380,000 (consisting of $18,692,000 of known environmental liabilities and $26,688,000 of reserves for future environmental liabilities) as of December 31, 2017. We recorded impairment charges aggregating $2,503,000 and $4,986,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, in continuing and discontinued operations for capitalized asset retirement costs.

Environmental exposures are difficult to assess and estimate for numerous reasons, including the extent of contamination, alternative treatment methods that may be applied, location of the property which subjects it to differing local laws and regulations and their interpretations, as well as the time it takes to remediate contamination and receive regulatory approval. In developing our liability for estimated environmental remediation obligations on a property by property basis, we consider, among other things, enacted laws and regulations, assessments of contamination and surrounding geology, quality of information available, currently available technologies for treatment, alternative methods of remediation and prior experience. Environmental accruals are based on estimates which are subject to significant change, and are adjusted as the remediation treatment progresses, as circumstances change, and as environmental contingencies become more clearly defined and reasonably estimable.

Our estimates are based upon facts that are known to us at this time and an assessment of the possible ultimate remedial action outcomes. It is possible that our assumptions, which form the basis of our estimates, regarding our ultimate environmental liabilities may change, which may result in our providing an accrual, or adjustments to the amounts recorded, for environmental remediation liabilities. Among the many uncertainties that impact the estimates are our assumptions, the necessary regulatory approvals for, and potential modifications of remediation plans, the amount of data available upon initial assessment of contamination, changes in costs associated with environmental remediation services and equipment, the availability of state UST remediation funds and the possibility of existing legal claims giving rise to additional claims, and possible changes in the environmental rules and regulations, enforcement policies, and reimbursement programs of various states.

In light of the uncertainties associated with environmental expenditure contingencies, we are unable to estimate ranges in excess of the amount accrued with any certainty; however, we believe that it is possible that the fair value of future actual net expenditures could be substantially higher than amounts currently recorded by us. Adjustments to accrued liabilities for environmental remediation obligations will be reflected in our consolidated financial statements as they become probable and a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. Additional environmental liabilities could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity, ability to pay dividends or stock price.

16

On March 1, 2018, our Board of Directors granted 121,650 restricted stock units (“RSU” or “RSUs”) under our Amended and Restated 2004 Omnibus Incentive Compensation Plan.

On October 24, 2017, our Board of Directors approved Articles Supplementary to our Articles of Incorporation, as amended, to reclassify 10,000,000 authorized shares of preferred stock, par value $.01 per share, into the same number of authorized but unissued shares of common stock, par value $.01 per share, subject to further classification or reclassification and issuance by our Board of Directors. The Articles Supplementary were filed with the Maryland State Department of Assessments and Taxation on October 25, 2017, and became effective on that date.

On May 8, 2018, our stockholders approved an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase the aggregate number of shares of stock of all classes which we have the authority to issue from 70,000,000 shares to 120,000,000 shares, by increasing (i) the aggregate number of shares of common stock which we have the authority to issue from 60,000,000 to 100,000,000 shares, and (ii) the aggregate number of shares of preferred stock which we have the authority to issue from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000 shares.

Equity Offering

On July 10, 2017, we entered into an underwriting agreement (the “Underwriting Agreement”) with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., as representatives of the several underwriters (the “Underwriters”), pursuant to which we sold to the Underwriters 4,100,000 shares of common stock (the “Equity Offering”). Pursuant to the terms of the Underwriting Agreement, we granted the Underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 615,000 shares of common stock. We received net proceeds from the Equity Offering, including the full exercise by the Underwriters of their option to purchase additional shares, of $104,312,000 after deducting the underwriting discount and offering expenses. The net proceeds of the Equity Offering were used to repay of amounts outstanding under our Revolving Facility and subsequently were used to fund the Empire and Applegreen transactions.

ATM Program

In June 2016, we established an at-the-market equity offering program (the “2016 ATM Program”), pursuant to which we were able to issue and sell shares of our common stock with an aggregate sales price of up to $125,000,000 through a consortium of banks acting as agents. The 2016 ATM Program was terminated in January 2018.

In March 2018, we established a new at-the-market equity offering program (the “ATM Program”), pursuant to which we are able to issue and sell shares of our common stock with an aggregate sales price of up to $125,000,000 through a consortium of banks acting as agents. Sales of the shares of common stock may be made, as needed, from time to time in at-the-market offerings as defined in Rule 415 of the Securities Act, including by means of ordinary brokers’ transactions on the New York Stock Exchange or otherwise at market prices prevailing at the time of sale, at prices related to prevailing market prices or as otherwise agreed to with the applicable agent.

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2018, we issued a total of 248,000 and 785,000 shares of common stock, respectively, and received net proceeds of $6,938,000 and $20,652,000, respectively, under the ATM Program. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2017, we issued 97,000 and 329,000 shares, respectively, of common stock and received net proceeds of $2,685,000 and $8,545,000, respectively, under the 2016 ATM Program. Future sales, if any, will depend on a variety of factors to be determined by us from time to time, including among others, market conditions, the trading price of our common stock, determinations by us of the appropriate sources of funding for us and potential uses of funding available to us.

17

Dividends

For the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $38,761,000 or $0.96 per share. For the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we paid regular quarterly dividends of $29,404,000 or $0.84 per share.

Dividend Reinvestment Plan

Our dividend reinvestment plan provides our common stockholders with a convenient and economical method of acquiring additional shares of common stock by reinvesting all or a portion of their dividend distributions. During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we issued 40,323 shares of common stock under the dividend reinvestment plan and received proceeds of $1,080,000. During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we issued 36,865 shares of common stock under the dividend reinvestment plan and received proceeds of $947,000.

Stock-Based Compensation

Compensation cost for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method was $1,309,000 and $996,000 for the nine months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and is included in general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of operations.

NOTE 8. — EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

Basic and diluted earnings per common share gives effect, utilizing the two-class method, to the potential dilution from the issuance of shares of our common stock in settlement of RSUs which provide for non-forfeitable dividend equivalents equal to the dividends declared per common share. Basic and diluted earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings less dividend equivalents attributable to RSUs by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period.

Diluted earnings per common share, also gives effect to the potential dilution from the exercise of stock options utilizing the treasury stock method. There were no options outstanding as of September 30, 2018 and 2017.

The following table is a reconciliation of the numerator and denominator used in the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common share using the two-class method (in thousands except per share data ):

NOTE 9. — FAIR VALUE MEASUREMENTS

Debt Instruments

As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the carrying value of the borrowings under the Restated Credit Agreement approximated fair value. As of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the fair value of the borrowings under senior unsecured notes was $328,200,000 and $233,500,000, respectively. The fair value of the borrowings outstanding as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, was determined using a discounted cash flow technique that incorporates a market interest yield curve with adjustments for duration, risk profile and borrowings outstanding, which are based on unobservable inputs within Level 3 of the Fair Value Hierarchy.

18

Supplemental Retirement Plan

We have mutual fund assets that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis using Level 1 inputs. We have a Supplemental Retirement Plan for executives. The amounts held in trust under the Supplemental Retirement Plan using Level 2 inputs may be used to satisfy claims of general creditors in the event of our or any of our subsidiaries’ bankruptcy. We have liability to the executives participating in the Supplemental Retirement Plan for the participant account balances equal to the aggregate of the amount invested at the executives’ direction and the income earned in such mutual funds.

The following summarizes as of September 30, 2018, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis by level within the Fair Value Hierarchy (in thousands):

The following summarizes as of December 31, 2017, our assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis by level within the Fair Value Hierarchy:

Real Estate Assets

We have certain real estate assets that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis using Level 3 inputs as of September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, of $2,908,000 and $2,785,000, respectively, where impairment charges have been recorded. Due to the subjectivity inherent in the internal valuation techniques used in estimating fair value, the amounts realized from the sale of such assets may vary significantly from these estimates.

NOTE 10. — DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS AND ASSETS HELD FOR SALE

We report as discontinued operations properties which met the criteria to be accounted for as held for sale in accordance with GAAP as of June 30, 2014, and certain properties disposed of during the periods presented that were previously classified as held for sale as of June 30, 2014. All results of these discontinued operations are included in a separate component of income on the consolidated statements of operations under the caption discontinued operations. At September 30, 2018, we classified two properties as held for sale on our consolidated balance sheet. We determined that the expected sale of these properties does not represent a strategic shift in our operations and, as a result, the results of operations for the two properties were reflected in our earnings from continuing operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2018.

Real estate held for sale consisted of the following at September 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017 (in thousands):

19

Activity from discontinued operations was as follows (in thousands):

NOTE 11. — PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS

2018

During the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we acquired fee simple interests in 39 convenience store and gasoline station properties for an aggregate purchase price of $74,714,000.

On April 17, 2018, we acquired fee simple interests in 30 convenience store and gasoline station properties for $52,592,000 and entered into a unitary lease with GPM Investments, LLC (“GPM”) at the closing of the transaction. We funded the GPM transaction through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with four five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires GPM to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located primarily within metropolitan markets in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas. We accounted for the acquisition of the properties as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $31,633,000 of the purchase price to land, $17,489,000 to buildings and improvements, $4,047,000 to in-place leases, and $577,000 to below market leases, which is accounted for as a deferred liability.

On August 1, 2018, we acquired fee simple interests in six convenience store and gasoline station properties for $17,412,000 and entered into a unitary lease with a U.S. subsidiary of Applegreen PLC (“Applegreen”) at the closing of the transaction. We funded the Applegreen transaction through funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with four five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires Applegreen to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties, including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are all located within the metropolitan market of Columbia, SC. We accounted for the acquisition of the properties as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $8,930,000 of the purchase price to land, $6,773,000 to buildings and improvements, $1,371,000 to in-place leases, $773,000 to above market leases and $435,000 to below market leases, which is accounted for as a deferred liability.

In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2018, we also acquired fee simple interests in three convenience store and gasoline station, and other automotive related properties for an aggregate purchase price of $4,710,000. We accounted for the acquisitions of fee simple interests as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $2,517,000 of the purchase price to land, $1,959,000 to buildings and improvements and $234,000 to in-place leases.

2017

During the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we acquired fee simple interests in 64 convenience store and gasoline station properties for an aggregate purchase price of $143,885,000.

On September 6, 2017, we acquired fee simple interests in 49 convenience store and gasoline station properties for $123,126,000 and entered into a unitary lease with Empire Petroleum Partners, LLC (“Empire”) at the closing of the transaction. We funded the Empire transaction through a combination of funds from our Equity Offering and funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with four five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires Empire to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase annually during the initial and renewal terms of the lease. The properties are located primarily within metropolitan markets in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas. We accounted for the acquisition of the properties as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if

20

vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $75,674,000 of the purchase price to land, $38,205,000 to buildings and improvements, $189,000 to above market leases and $9,058,000 to in-place leases.

On October 3, 2017, we acquired fee simple interests in 33 convenience store and gasoline station properties and five stand-alone Burger King quick service restaurants for $68,710,000 and entered into a unitary lease with a U.S. subsidiary of Applegreen at the closing of the transaction. We funded the Applegreen transaction through a combination of funds from our Equity Offering and funds available under our Revolving Facility. The unitary lease provides for an initial term of 15 years, with four five-year renewal options. The unitary lease requires Applegreen to pay a fixed annual rent plus all amounts pertaining to the properties including environmental expenses, real estate taxes, assessments, license and permit fees, charges for public utilities and all other governmental charges. Rent is scheduled to increase on the fifth anniversary of the commencement of the lease and annually thereafter. The properties are all located within the metropolitan market of Columbia, SC. We accounted for the acquisition of the properties as an asset acquisition. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $36,874,000 of the purchase price to land, $27,431,000 to buildings and improvements, $961,000 to above market leases, $1,104,000 to below market leases, which is accounted for as a deferred liability, and $4,548,000 to in-place leases.

In addition, during the nine months ended September 30, 2017, we acquired fee simple interests in 15 convenience store and gasoline station properties, in separate transactions, for an aggregate purchase price of $20,759,000. We accounted for these acquisitions as asset acquisitions. We estimated the fair value of acquired tangible assets for each of these acquisitions (consisting of land, buildings and improvements) “as if vacant.” Based on these estimates, we allocated $5,521,000 of the purchase price to land, $12,950,000 to buildings and improvements, $559,000 to below market leases, which is accounted for as a deferred liability, and $2,847,000 to in-place leases.

We evaluated each of the acquisitions and determined that substantially all the fair value related to each acquisition is concentrated in a similar identifiable operating property. Accordingly, these transactions did not meet the definition of a business and consequently were accounted for as asset acquisitions. In each of these transactions, we allocated the total consideration for each acquisition to the individual assets acquired on a relative fair value basis.