Also known as: general plans · comprehensive plan
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A municipal document that establishes zones for different types of development, uses, traffic patterns, and future growth. Amendments to zoning ordinances must remain consistent with the plan and bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, or general welfare.
A municipal document that establishes zones for different types of development, uses, traffic patterns, and future growth. Amendments to zoning ordinances must remain consistent with the plan and bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, or general welfare.
A coordinated scheme for developing a tract or subdivision under which conveyance of lots implies reciprocal servitudes benefiting each included parcel. Each lot within the plan becomes the implied beneficiary of servitudes created to carry out the scheme.
A coordinated scheme for developing a tract or subdivision under which conveyance of lots implies reciprocal servitudes benefiting each included parcel. Each lot within the plan becomes the implied beneficiary of servitudes created to carry out the scheme.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Gideon Graves owned a lakeshore parcel zoned for conservation. The city council amended the zoning map to permit a research center on only that parcel after notice and hearing. Graves sued, arguing the change conflicted with the comprehensive plan's no-development corridor. The court examined whether the amendment served a legitimate public purpose or amounted to arbitrary spot zoning.
Grace Gupta acquired land previously zoned for apartments. The city rezoned it to low-intensity office uses under its comprehensive plan to address traffic and school capacity. Gupta sued, claiming the change lacked a substantial relation to public welfare. The court assessed whether the ordinance advanced legitimate community goals.
The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. 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. 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. Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. 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. 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. Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. 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. 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. 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. The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance. The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.
View caseGino Giordano sought to develop property in a manner barred by a newly adopted comprehensive plan. Local officials denied permits, citing the plan's allocation of uses. Giordano challenged the denial as inconsistent with prior expectations. The court reviewed whether the plan controlled the zoning decision.
2 common questions
Rezoning must remain consistent with the comprehensive or general plan and bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, or general welfare. A change that benefits only one parcel without a legitimate public purpose may constitute invalid spot zoning.
Supporting sources
No. A single-parcel amendment is not invalid if it advances a legitimate public purpose such as conservation education or habitat restoration and complies with procedural requirements. Courts balance the single-parcel nature against community-wide benefits and plan consistency.
Supporting sources
Genesis Pharmaceuticals purchased an outpad parcel in a lifestyle center developed by Greenleaf Farms. The recorded plat showed shared parking and pedestrian corridors on the core parcel. Genesis's deed referenced participation in the coordinated project. When Greenleaf Farms later blocked access, Genesis claimed implied rights under the general plan of development.
Gordon Gray bought lot 12 in a subdivision where the developer had recorded servitudes for common roads and open space on the central parcel. Gray's deed mentioned the overall coordinated layout. When the developer attempted to restrict Gray's access, Gray asserted beneficiary status under the general plan.
Gustavo Gutierrez purchased a lot in a tract where the developer had imposed single-family restrictions on most parcels under a coordinated scheme. Gutierrez later sought to build a multi-family unit. Neighboring owners invoked the general plan to enforce the restriction against him.
In February 1964, Alpine Slopes Development Company conveyed Lot 101 of Alpine Meadows Estates Subdivision No. 3 in Placer County to Ernest H. and Jewel Riley by grant deed recorded on March 13, 1964. The deed contained no restrictions upon the use of the plaintiffs’ property nor any reference to any instrument purporting to impose restrictions upon Lot 101. At the time of the conveyance there was no document of record purporting to restrict the use of Lot 101. Nine months later, on November 25, 1964, the grantor recorded a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations on lots 72 through 116 of the subdivision. The declaration recited that the grantor had established a general plan for the improvement and development of the property and set forth 26 numbered paragraphs of restrictions, covenants and conditions, including paragraph 6, which required submission of plans and specifications to the Bear Creek Planning Committee and its approval before any dwelling, garage, building, fence, wall or other structure or excavation could be commenced or maintained. At a time not established by the record the Rileys constructed a snow tunnel on their lot. On January 12, 1972, the committee recorded a notice of violation of covenants, conditions and restrictions that referred specifically to Lot 101 and the declaration recorded November 25, 1964, and recited the probable violation of paragraph 6 in that a covered walkway had been constructed without prior compliance. The Rileys filed a complaint to quiet title and for damages for slander of title. The planning committee and some of its members cross-complained for declaratory relief. The trial court entered judgment quieting title in the Rileys against all claims of defendants and ruling for the Rileys on the cross-complaint. The Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the judgment. The California Supreme Court granted a hearing for the purpose of giving further consideration to the issues raised.
2 common questions
Conveyance of land pursuant to a general plan of development implies servitudes unless facts indicate contrary intent. Each lot included in the plan becomes the implied beneficiary of servitudes imposed to carry out the plan.
Supporting sources
Recorded plats showing coordinated layout, deeds referencing participation in a unified project, and servitudes created expressly to implement the scheme indicate inclusion. Separate plats or declarations for distinct subdivisions may show the parcels fall outside one plan.
Supporting sources
…26-4, and n. 6 (4th ed. 1978). In contrast to discriminatory zoning, which is the antithesis of land-use control as part of some comprehensive plan, the New York City law embodies a comprehensive plan to preserve structures of historic or aesthetic interest wherever they might be found in the city, and as noted, over 400…