272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed 303 (1926)
The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland.1 Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area spans from twelve to fourteen square miles, with the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage.2 It lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way and is traversed east and west by three principal highways and two railroads.3
Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village.4 This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north.5 Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected.6
On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan.7 The ordinance divides the village into six use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four area districts denominated A-1 to A-4.8 Appellee's tract is classified as U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder.9
Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals.10 The board holds public meetings, keeps minutes of its proceedings, and possesses authority to interpret the ordinance in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, while penalties are prescribed for violations.11 Ambler Realty Co. filed suit alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted.12 The bill further alleged that unrestricted market value is about $10,000 per acre but limited to residential purposes the value does not exceed $2,500 per acre, that the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue has a value of $150 per front foot if unrestricted but not in excess of $50 per front foot if limited to residential uses, and that the ordinance confiscates and destroys a great part of its value while deterring prospective buyers.13 The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance.14
The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature.15 The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.16
Whether the suit challenging the zoning ordinance was premature because the property owner made no effort to obtain a building permit or apply to the zoning board of appeals for relief?17
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 for industrial, commercial and residential uses.18 The attack is directed against the ordinance as an entirety.19 The existence and maintenance of the ordinance constitutes a present invasion of property rights and a threat to continue it.20 Equitable jurisdiction is clear under these circumstances.21
No. Although the property owner made no effort to obtain a building permit or apply to the zoning board of appeals for relief, the bill alleges that the ordinance of its own force operates greatly to reduce the value of appellee’s lands and destroy their marketability for industrial, commercial and residential uses, with the attack directed against the ordinance as an entirety.22 Assuming the premises, the existence and maintenance of the ordinance in effect constitutes a present invasion of appellee’s property rights and a threat to continue it.23 Under these circumstances, the equitable jurisdiction is clear.24
The motion to dismiss the bill on the ground that the suit was premature was properly overruled.25
Whether the zoning ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment by depriving the property owner of liberty and property without due process of law?26
A zoning ordinance must find its justification in some aspect of the police power asserted for the public welfare.27 If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.28 The ordinance must bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare and must not be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.29
No. The ordinance finds its justification in the police power asserted for the public welfare.30 The exclusion of industrial establishments from residential districts bears a rational relation to the health and safety of the community by separating dwelling houses from territory devoted to trade and industry, facilitating the extinguishment of fires, and aiding the enforcement of street traffic regulations and other general welfare ordinances.31 The reasons summarized from experts and state courts, including promotion of health and security from injury of children, suppression of disorder, and prevention of congestion, are sufficiently cogent to preclude saying that the provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.32 The ordinance in its general scope and dominant features is a valid exercise of authority.33
The zoning ordinance does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.34
Whether the zoning ordinance violates the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the property owner the equal protection of the laws?35
A zoning ordinance satisfies the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when its classifications are reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests in public health, safety, morals and general welfare and are not arbitrary or capricious.36
No. The ordinance divides the village into use, height and area districts with classifications that bear a rational relation to the health and safety of the community by segregating industrial, commercial and residential uses.3738 The legislative judgment that such segregation prevents congestion, facilitates fire protection, and reduces disorder must be allowed to control because the validity of the classification is at least fairly debatable.39
The zoning ordinance does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.40
Whether the zoning ordinance offends provisions of the Constitution of the State of Ohio?41
The question whether a zoning ordinance violates state constitutional protections to the right of property by regulations under the guise of the police power that are unreasonable and confiscatory is the same under the state constitution as under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.42
No. The question under the state constitution is the same as under the Fourteenth Amendment.43 The ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power.44 It bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare by segregating uses to promote community welfare.45 It is not clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.46 Therefore, the ordinance does not offend the Constitution of the State of Ohio.47
The zoning ordinance does not offend the Constitution of the State of Ohio.48