[272 U.S.] at 395
The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation adjoining and practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area covers twelve to fourteen square miles, the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. The village lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way.1
East and west the village is traversed by three principal highways: Euclid Avenue through the southerly border, St. Clair Avenue through the central portion, and Lake Shore Boulevard through the northerly border near Lake Erie. The Nickel Plate railroad lies 1,500 to 1,800 feet north of Euclid Avenue, and the Lake Shore railroad lies 1,600 feet farther north. The three highways and the two railroads are substantially parallel.2
Ambler Realty Company owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. The tract abuts Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Restricted residential plats upon which residences have been erected adjoin the tract both on the east and on the west.3
On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the entire village area into six classes of use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three classes of height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four classes of area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. A zone map is annexed showing the location and limits of the various districts.4
Ambler's tract comes under U-2, U-3, and U-6. The first strip of 620 feet immediately north of Euclid Avenue falls in class U-2, the next 130 feet to the north falls in U-3, and the remainder falls in U-6. The lands lying between the two railroads for the entire length of the village area are left open for industrial and all other uses.5
Ambler Realty Company filed a bill in equity alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleges that the ordinance restricts the land so as to reduce its market value from about $10,000 per acre to not in excess of $2,500 per acre and the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue from $150 per front foot to not in excess of $50 per front foot. Prospective buyers are deterred, and the ordinance constitutes a cloud on title. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement at 297 Fed. 307, after overruling a motion to dismiss on the ground that no building permit or zoning board appeal had been sought.6
Whether the Village of Euclid zoning ordinance deprives the appellee of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment?7
Building zone laws must find their justification in some aspect of the police power asserted for the public welfare.8 The line separating the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power varies with circumstances and conditions.9 If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.10 A regulatory zoning ordinance is valid if it bears a rational relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and is not clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.11
No. The ordinance was adopted by the Village Council on November 13, 1922, establishing use districts U-1 to U-6, height districts H-1 to H-3, and area districts A-1 to A-4 with a zone map annexed.12 Ambler Realty Company's 68-acre tract is zoned U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder, while lands between the two railroads remain open for industrial uses.13 This zoning reduces the market value of the land from about $10,000 per acre to not in excess of $2,500 per acre and the first 200 feet from $150 per front foot to $50 per front foot.14 The court determines that the exclusion of industrial establishments from residential districts and the restrictions on apartment houses bear a rational relation to health and safety by promoting the health and security of children, facilitating fire extinguishment, suppressing disorder, and preventing the nuisances associated with business and industry in residential areas as the development of apartment houses can destroy the residential character of neighborhoods.15
The reasons summarized from experts and state courts are sufficiently cogent to preclude a finding that the provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.16 The ordinance in its general scope and dominant features is a valid exercise of authority leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them.17
The Village of Euclid zoning ordinance does not deprive the appellee of liberty and property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment.18
Whether the zoning ordinance denies the appellee the equal protection of the laws?19
A zoning classification does not deny equal protection if it rests upon a reasonable basis and is not arbitrary or capricious, with the legislative judgment controlling when the validity of the classification is fairly debatable.20
No. The ordinance divides the village into six use districts with cumulative permitted uses, three height districts, and four area districts, placing Ambler Realty Company's tract under U-2, U-3, and U-6 while leaving the strip between the railroads open for industrial uses.21 The distinctions among districts rest on considerations of health, safety, and general welfare including the prevention of congestion, the facilitation of fire protection, and the avoidance of nuisances from industrial and apartment uses in residential areas.22 Because the classification is fairly debatable and bears a rational relation to legitimate governmental objectives, it satisfies equal protection requirements under the Fourteenth Amendment.23
The zoning ordinance does not deny the appellee the equal protection of the laws.24
Whether the suit is premature because the appellee made no effort to obtain a building permit or apply to the zoning board of appeals for relief?25
A suit challenging a zoning ordinance is not premature when the ordinance of its own force operates greatly to reduce the value of the lands and destroy their marketability. The ordinance thereby constitutes a present invasion of property rights that confers equitable jurisdiction.26
No. Ambler Realty Company filed a bill alleging that the ordinance restricts the land so as to reduce its market value and deter prospective buyers. The attack is directed against the ordinance as an entirety rather than any specific provision.27 The district court properly overruled the motion to dismiss because the existence and maintenance of the ordinance constitutes a present invasion of appellee's property rights and a threat to continue it. Equitable jurisdiction is therefore clear without the necessity of first seeking a building permit or zoning board relief.28
The suit is not premature.29