You are on page 1of 2

I. ZONING AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (of landowners and developers) 1.

MAJOR POLICY ARGUMENTS UNDERLYING LAND USE CLAIMS DP (14th): requires each zoning restriction be reasonably related to a legitimate government objective Takings Clause (5th): used by some courts to examine reasonableness until Lingle EP Clause (14th) / Takings Clause (5th): prevents landowners from shouldering unfair burdens DP (14th) / Takings Clause (5th): interferes with settled expectations 1st Amendment: free expression, free religious exercise, privacy and association Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1) presumption of constitutionality (2) constitutional if “fairly debatable”: or unless “arbitrary and capricious” (3) ordinance must be rationally related to health, safety, morals or general welfare  when you bring a facial challenge, the zoning ordinance is considered as a whole—very difficult to succeed here 2. SUBSTANTIVE DP: State’s Police Power to Regulate Land Use Is zoning constitutional? Is it consistent with state’s zoning power? Does government have the authority to regulate?  judicial deference: unless arbitrary, local government knows best—consistent with state’s police power Nectow v. City of Cambridge P wants to use entire land for industrial purposes but some of it is zoned residential. Court upholds “as applied” challenge- not related to health, safety, or general welfare. How far does police power go today? State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley - Land owner tried to build an ultramodern residence (“ugly” house) that did not fit in with the surrounding homes but satisfied all additional zoning and building codes, the Architectural Review board of Ladue denied the permit. - SC found for City because: 1. Missouri Zoning Enabling Act (modeled after SZEA) authorized architectural review. 2. aesthetic objectives of the program were permissible when coupled with the city’s interest in promoting the general welfare and maintaining property values 3. standard of decision (to prevent unsightly, grotesque, or unsuitable structure in appearance, detrimental to the welfare of the surrounding property or residence) was not inadequate to entail an unconstitutional delegation power. Kuvin v. Gables - Kuvin parked his F-150 on the street in a residential area of Coral Gables and was given a violation based on sections 8-11 and 8-12, which prohibit parking a “truck” (the definition clearly includes F-150’s) anywhere at any time in a residential area (including a private driveway) or public street between 7 am and 7 pm. Court found for the City, now decision is appealed. Held for Kuvin. - City’s says they are policing the safety, morals, and general well being of citizens however there is no discernible relationship between this municipal regulation applied to a vehicle, government cannot distinguish based on personal taste.

will be set aside as arbitrary only if record contains no rational basis for decision 3. . use rational basis analysis—does a rational basis exist between the policy and any conceivable legitimate government objective  administrative actions: court determine whether decision maker acted rationally based upon evidence.Anderson submits building plans to Development Commission to build on his commercial property but was rejected four times because the buildings don’t “fit in with the character of Issaquah”.Anderson v. too subjective. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Line Drawing Class of One Claims . Anderson appeals. building design requirements were unconstitutionally vague Is the challenged action legislative or administrative?  legislative actions: purpose of policy irrelevant. Trial court found for town.Trial court decision reversed and ordered the town to issue a building certificate because the requirements did not give “effective meaning”. City of Issaquah .