AICP Zoning and Growth Management Cases

Question 1

Mugler v Kansas (1887)

Answer 1

Law declared liquor sales to be a public nuisance
Brewery owner got prosecuted
Value of brewery collapsed
SCOTUS: not a taking, not compensation due, not violation of due process law

Question 2

Euclid v Ambler (1926)

Answer 2

Divided industrial property into three different zoning districts, consistent with comp plan
SCOTUS: upheld law based on fairly debatable grounds, no total loss of value, not a taking
The United States Supreme Court upheld the City of Euclid’s zoning regulations as a legitimate exercise of the police power, asserted for public welfare. The court’s decision established local zoning as a legally defensible land use regulation and formed the basis for local court decisions on land use controls for several years.

Question 3

Nectow v City of Cambridge (1928)

Answer 3

Contract to sell property had to be voided because law got changed
SCOTUS: found to be a taking

Question 4

Golden v Town of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 4

Concurrency, permits wouldn’t be issued until govt was ready to provide services (timing of installation of public facilities)
No exclusionary intent
State law case

Question 5

Construction Industry Association v City of Petaluma (1975)

Answer 5

Permit rationing for development permit