Zoning

Question 1

A public nuisance is

Answer 1

intentional, non trespassory, unreasonable, substantial interference with use and enjoyment of land

Question 2

Zoning Justification

Answer 2

safety and aesthetics

Question 3

Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty

Answer 3

Facts:
- Appellee land is under zones U2, U3, and U6, meaning different parts of his land have vastly different restrictions.
- Court below said ordinance was unconstitutional and void.

Holding:
- Yes, the lower court erred. The zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable exercise of the
state/local police powers

• Industrial use prohibition – makes residential districts more livable, safer
• Multi-unit/apartments and shops/restaurants prohibition – safety, “livability”

Question 4

A city’s zoning code is unconstitutional only if it is

Answer 4

clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”
* Rational Basis Test

Question 5

Moore v City of East Cleveland “family zoning”

Answer 5

• jailed grandmother for living with grandson

Holding
“When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are
served by the challenged regulation..”

Question 6

NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel (Allowed only homes within the financial reach of persons of at least middle income.)

Answer 6

Issue
Whether a developing municipality may validly, by a system of land use regulation, make it physically and
economically impossible to provide low and moderate-income housing in the municipality for the various
categories of persons who need and want it and thereby, … exclude such people from living within its confines because of the limited extent of their income and resources?

Holding: We conclude that every such municipality must, by its land use regulations, presumptively make
realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing.