Planning Law

Question 1

Before comprehensive zoning, what was regulation of land based on?

Answer 1

Nuisance laws. Under common law, persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. If it is interrupted (eg. through noise, pollution, odor) the affected party can claim a nuisance. early zoning regulations focused on limiting nuisances.

Question 2

Fourteenth Amendment

Answer 2

Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection

due process can be applied to takings, eminent domain, and exactions.

substantive due process is about the validity of the rule itself (aesthetics)

procedural due process is about whether the rules were applied fairly (how was an ordinance applied?)

Equal protection, often applied to exclusionary zoning

Question 3

First Amendment

Answer 3

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association

freedom of speech applies to adult uses and signs.

Freedom of religion applies to religious facilities.

Freedom of association applies to group homes.

Question 4

Fifth Amendment

Answer 4

Just compensation for takings

applies to takings and eminent domain cases

Question 5

Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909)

Answer 5

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 6

Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912)

Answer 6

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 because they were against the delegation of this authority to private citizens. However, the Court acknowledged that the establishment of building lines was a valid exercise of the police power.

Question 7

Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)

Answer 7

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 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Question 8

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)

Answer 8

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 9

Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)

Answer 9

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 10

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 12

The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.

Question 13

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 13

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 14

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 14

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

Question 15

Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 15

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 16

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

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

Answer 17

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 18

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 18

The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

first amendment case

Question 19

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 19

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.

first amendment case

Question 20

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984)

Answer 20

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.

first amendment case

Question 21

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)

Answer 21

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.

first amendment case

Question 22

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 22

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 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 23

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

Answer 23

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 Gilbert claiming that the sign code violated the free speech clause in the First Amendment, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

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 24

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)

Answer 24

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.’

fifth amendment

Question 25

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)

Answer 25

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 26

Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 26

The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

Question 27

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

Answer 27

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.

fifth amendment

Question 28

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)

Answer 28

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.

fifth amendment

Question 29

Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)

Answer 29

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 30

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)

Answer 30

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 31

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 31

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.

Taking is s taking, even if temporary
Requires just compensation

Fifth amendment

Question 32

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 32

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 33

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 33

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 34

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

Answer 34

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.

Question 35

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)

Answer 35

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 36

Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)

Answer 36

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 37

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 37

The Court, in this case, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation. 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 38

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)

Answer 38

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.

Taking- all economically viable use of their property

Violation of equal protection, 14th amendment, civil rights

Regulatory abuse

City prevailed on due process clause, 14th amendment

Question 39

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)

Answer 39

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 40

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002)

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 41

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. 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 42

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 42

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 43

Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)

Answer 43

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 44

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

Answer 44

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).

Question 45

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

Answer 45

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 46

Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)

Answer 46

The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and 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.

fourteenth amendment case

Question 47

Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)

Answer 47

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.”

fourteenth amendment case

Question 48

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)

Answer 48

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 49

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)

Answer 49

The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC), a nonprofit developer, contracted to purchase a tract within Arlington Heights in order to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. MHDC applied to the Village for the necessary rezoning from a single-family to a multiple-family (R-5) classification. The Village denied the rezoning request and MHDC and individual minority respondents filed suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act.

The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts. They reprimanded to the lower court for further consideration.

fourteenth amendenment case

Question 50

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)

Answer 50

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.

fourteenth amendment case

Question 51

City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)

Answer 51

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.

fourteenth amendment case

Question 52

Which amendment of the U.S. constitution gives police power?

Answer 52

The tenth amendment gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the United States.”

Question 53

What is the police power?

Answer 53

States are granted the ability to regulate behavior and enforce laws that will sustain the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people.

Question 54

Dillon’s Rule

Answer 54

applies in states where the rights of the cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state.

39 states employ Dillons rule to all municipalities.

8 states employ the rule for certain types of municipalities.

Question 55

Home Rule

Answer 55

Home rule states are those in which the cities have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise.