Zoning Flashcards
Issues surrounding Zoning Zoning is seen as a legitimate police power to regulate and control private behavior in order to protect and promote great public welfare. However zoning has been ruled to violate the due process clause of the 5th amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926)
Establishing zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government and does not violate due process or equal protection.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)
The Court held that an ordinance of Los Angeles, California prohibiting the manufacturing of bricks within specified limits of the city did not unconstitutionally deprive the petitioner of his property without due process of law, or deny him equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court first approved regulating the location of land uses.
Welch v. Swasey (1909)
The Supreme Court first approved building height controls. Deferring to the police powers of the local municipality.
Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912)
The Supreme Court first approved setback regulations, although it overturned them in this case because it found that the setbacks imposed by petition of neighbors violated equal protection.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)
Facts of the Case
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.
Question
Did the housing ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The four justices in the plurality held that the ordinance violated Moore’s rights as it constituted “intrusive regulation of the family” without accruing some tangible state interest. Justice Stevens joined in the judgment and argued that the ordinance was invalid because, by regulating who could live with Moore, it constituted a taking of property without just compensation.
Ayres v. City of Los Angeles (1949)
The Court ruled that a developer seeking to acquire the advantage of development has a duty to comply with reasonable conditions on the community so long as there is a legal nexus, such as between burden on roads and conditions requiring the development to make road improvements and dedicate land for street usage.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1972)
The court held that under the NJ Constitution, a community must provide its “fair share” of low and moderate income housing. The pattern and practice of the township in excluding multi-family dwellings was discriminatory.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Development Corp. (1977)
The court ruled that racially discriminatory intent or purpose, rather than disproportionate impact, required to prove equal protection violation in zoning action.
Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1930)
Retroactive ordinance that causes substantial injury and prohibits operation of business which is not a nuisance is an invalid exercise of police power as it takes away rights to operate a legitimate business.
Austin v. Older (1938)
The court allows limitation on expanding non-conforming uses.
Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County
All zoning and rezoning must be consistent with applicable comprehensive plans.
