AICP Law cases

Question 1

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 1

Zoning. The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Question 2

Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)

Answer 2

Zoning. The state had a statute authorizing cities and towns to establish building lines. The ordinance allowed the owners of two-thirds of the land abutting any street to request a building line. The court struck down the ordinance: giving one set of property owners ability to impose setbacks deprives others of due process. The Court acknowledged that the establishment of building lines was a valid exercise of the police power.

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)

Answer 3

Zoning. The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses

Question 4

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)

Answer 4

Zoning. The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

Question 5

Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

Answer 5

Zoning. Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, the Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 6

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 6

Growth management; Zoning. The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the facilities themselves. One of the earliest examples of Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances.

Question 7

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 7

Zoning. The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

Question 8

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 8

Growth management. The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

Question 9

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1976)

Answer 9

Growth management. The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Question 10

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 10

Challenges to Federal Acts. The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

Question 11

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc. (2006)

Answer 11

Challenges to Federal Acts. The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.

Question 12

Rapanos v. United States (2006)

Answer 12

Challenges to Federal Acts. The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.

Question 13

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection (2006)

Answer 13

Challenges to Federal Acts. The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

Question 14

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc. (2015)

Answer 14

Challenges to Federal Acts. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act.

Question 15

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc. (1976)

Answer 15

First Amendment Cases. The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. The ordinance prohibited adult theaters within 1k ft of other buildings with regulated uses and 500ft from residential districts.

Question 16

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1981)

Answer 16

First Amendment Cases. The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.

Question 17

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

Answer 17

First Amendment Cases. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.

Question 18

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)

Answer 18

First Amendment Cases. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.

Question 19

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 19

First Amendment Cases. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The new act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This act has been challenged in several legal cases, for example in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago. In that case, the Court found that changes that the City made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordinance into compliance with RLUIPA. This act was also challenged in Cutter v. Wilkinson, U.S. Supreme Court (2005), where the Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accommodation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Question 20

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)

Answer 20

1st and 14th Amendments. The pastor of a church rented space in an elementary school and placed signs in the area announcing the time and location of the church services. Gilbert’s sign ordinance restricts the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary signs. Gilbert advised the church that it had violated the sign code through the placement of the temporary signs. The church sued.

The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.

Question 21

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Answer 21

Takings. The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.

Question 22

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922)

Answer 22

Takings. The Court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.

Question 23

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Answer 23

Takings. Berman sued arguing against eminant domain for beautification of the city. The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Question 24

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York (1976)

Answer 24

Takings. In this case, the city had put in place a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.

Question 25

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York (1978)

Answer 25

Takings. The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. The Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The Court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights.

Question 26

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980)

Answer 26

Takings. The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The zoning ordinance placed the appellants’ property in a zone with density restrictions (one single-family residence per acre). The appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.

Question 27

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation (1982)

Answer 27

Takings. The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking. The Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.

Question 28

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

Answer 28

Takings. The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages. The Court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.

Question 29

Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis (1987)

Answer 29

Takings. Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.

Question 30

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation (1987)

Answer 30

Takings. Public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court found that a taking had not occurred.

Question 31

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 31

Takings. The question before the Court was whether the California Coastal Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain beachfront access constitutes a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a “continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast,” but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land. Created “essential nexus” takings test for conditioning development approvals on dedications and exactions. There must be a strong relationship between the problem created by proposed development and the proposed exaction (or mitigation), or else compensation may be required.

Question 32

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Answer 32

Takings. The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place (except where derived from the state’s law of property and nuisance). The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.

Question 33

Dolan v. Tigard (1994)

Answer 33

Takings. The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commercial business that wanted to expand. The Court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. Conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified, but there has to be a clear relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The “rough proportionality” test was created from this case: “an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use.”

Question 34

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

Answer 34

Takings. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies’ regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.

Question 35

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd. (1999)

Answer 35

Takings. The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city’s repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property. The development was in conformance with the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Question 36

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

Answer 36

Takings. The question before the Court was whether a property owner who acquired title to a property after regulations were in place could still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council because the landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. The Supreme Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.

Question 37

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al. (2002)

Answer 37

Takings. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

Recognizes that partial, temporary deprivations of property may constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, but must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis under the regulatory taking framework of Penn Central.

Question 38

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc. (2005)

Answer 38

Takings. The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Brings back test under Penn Central. The Court found that Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

Question 39

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005)

Answer 39

Takings. The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Question 40

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Answer 40

Takings. The Supreme Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain. The Court reasoned that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.

Question 41

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Answer 41

Takings. The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation (in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments). The reclaimed land was public land submerged, so it remained public land when reclaimed.

Question 42

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)

Answer 42

Takings. Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St. John’s River Water Management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John’s agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St. John’s denied the application. The key question facing the Court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.

Question 43

Munn v. Illinois (1876)

Answer 43

14th Amendment. The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a violation of due process. The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

Question 44

Mugler v. Kansas (1887)

Answer 44

14th Amendment. The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. “A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking.”

Question 45

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974)

Answer 45

14th Amendment. The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The Court thus extended the concept of zoning under the police power to include a community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.

Question 46

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (MHDC) (1977)

Answer 46

14th Amendment. A non-profit developer, MHDC, wanted to build racially integrated low- and mod-income housing. They were denied a rezone/variance from single-family to multi-family. The Supreme Court established that proof of discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts.

Question 47

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [I] (1975)

Answer 47

14th Amendment. The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.

Question 48

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [II] (1975)

Answer 48

Created a model for fair housing remedy for exclusionary zoning. Established rules for regional affordable housing burden, affirmative policies, “builders remedies”.

Question 49

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Answer 49

14th Amendment. This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.

Question 50

Where does the statutory basis of the state police power come from?

Answer 50

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the United States.”States are granted the ability to regulate behavior and enforce laws that will sustain the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people.” This right was upheld in Mugler v. Kansas (1887) in which the Supreme Court found that a state had the right to regulate a brewery.

Question 51

City of Edmonds v. Oxford House (1995)

Answer 51

FHA. Edmonds, WA, enacted a zoning ordinance that required single-family dwelling units to be inhabited by a “family”, defined as “an individual or two or more persons related by…[list].” Oxford House requested a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act. The City denied the request. The court distinguished between ordinances capping the number of individuals who may occupy a dwelling and ordinances limiting who may occupy a dwelling. Recognizes that definitions of “family” contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy a dwelling are subject to the requirements of the FHA.

Question 52

Murr v. Wisconsin (2017)

Answer 52

Takings. The Murr family had several adjacent lots under common ownership, which precluded selling or developing one of the adjacent lots. They applied for a variance but were denied. The Court created a new test to determine the property unit (the denominator) for a regulatory takings analysis:
(a) whether state and local law treats the land as a single parcel or separate parcels;
(b) the physical characteristics of the property; and
(c) the value of the property under the challenged regulation, with special attention to the effect of the burdened and on the value of other holdings.

Question 53

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995)

Answer 53

Endangered Species Act. The Supreme Court held that habitat modification is a legitimate application of the word “harm.”

Question 54

Village of Willowbrook v. Olech (2000)

Answer 54

14th Amendment. The Village conditioned approval of Olech’s request to connect with water with an additional setback. However, other property owners had lower setbacks. Olech sued saying this was a violation of due process. The Courth held that it was indeed a violation of the 14th Amendment, stating a “class of one” is covered by the amendment.

Question 55

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.(1985)

Answer 55

14h Amendment. Petitioner was denied a special use permit for a group home for mentally disabled and sued. The Court declined to classify those with mental disabilities as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. However, the Court held that government legislation can be unconstitutional when it applied a rational basis level of review. Cannot deny a permit based on irrational fears.

Question 56

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

Answer 56

14th Amendment. East Cleveland’s housing ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. Part of the ordinance was a strict definition of “family” which excluded Mrs. Inez Moore who lived with her son and two grandsons. The Court held that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation.

Question 57

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

Answer 57

5th Amendment. Court held that a state could use eminent domain to take land that was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of private landowners and redistribute it to the wider population of private residents.

Question 58

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 58

14th Amendment - Due Process. Boston limiting the height of buildings in a certain quarter of a city, does not violate the Constitution.

Question 59

City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)

Answer 59

First Amendment. Los Angeles prohibition against operating more than one sexually-oriented business (SOB) in the same building or structure was OK; evidence that a concentration of establishments would increase negative secondary effects could also apply to concentration of operations.

Question 60

City of Erie v. Pap’s A. M. (2000)

Answer 60

First Amendment. Regulations requiring exotic dancers to wear minimal clothing not violation of freedom of expression.

Question 61

City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.

Answer 61

5th Amendment. Due Process Clause. No violation if zoning map may be amended by citizen referendum.

Question 62

Due Process Constitutional Right

Answer 62

14th Amendment

Question 63

Takings Constitutional Rights

Answer 63

5th Amendment

Question 64

Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp. (1932)

Answer 64

Nuisance. Bove bought and lived in a residence in an industrial area. Sued that nearby industrial uses had impacts on health and property values. Court held that nuisance does not apply where plaintiff intentionally locates within a known industrial area, regardless of the nuisance’s source existed at the time of locating there.

Question 65

Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission

Answer 65

Made National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requirements judicially enforceable.

Question 66

Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979)

Answer 66

Court ruled that the government could not require public access without invoking eminent domain and paying just compensation.

Question 67

Cutter v. Wilkinson (2005)

Answer 67

The Court Ruled that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is a constitutional religious accommodation under the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Question 68

Spur Industries v. Webb Dev. Company (1972)

Answer 68

The Court affirmed that the feedlots next to Sun City retirement community were both public and private nuisance. However, the developer, having brought people to the nuisance, was required to compensate Spur Industries for the costs of relocating or shutting down the feedlots.

Question 69

First English Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

Answer 69

The Court found if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay damages.