Also known as: rezones · rezoned · rezoning · rezonings · zone change
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A legislative act by which a municipality amends its zoning ordinance or map to alter the permitted uses or density for a parcel or area. The amendment must follow notice and hearing procedures and bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Ryan Roberts operated a small manufacturing shop on land zoned industrial when he bought it. The city later rezoned the area residential. Roberts continued the shop as a nonconforming use and retained the right to keep operating because the use was lawful when established.
Ralph Richardson obtained a building permit for a commercial project under existing zoning and spent substantial sums on site preparation. The city then rezoned the parcel to residential use only. Richardson retained the right to finish the project because the good-faith expenditures created a vested right that the rezoning could not defeat.
Roberto Reyes owned a tract the city rezoned from agricultural to mixed-use after published notice and a public hearing. The amendment addressed traffic and housing needs and applied uniformly to the surrounding area. The rezoning took effect because it satisfied procedural requirements and advanced public welfare.
Rina Rahman asked the city to rezone her single lot from residential to commercial while neighboring parcels stayed residential. The change would have benefited only her parcel and lacked any public purpose tied to the comprehensive plan. The rezoning was invalid because it singled out one owner without a legitimate community benefit.
Rajesh Rao applied to rezone land for a retail center and agreed to limit building height and add traffic improvements. The city granted the rezoning subject to those conditions. The conditional rezoning became effective because it met statutory procedures and the agreed restrictions addressed public concerns.
Rowan Russell sought rezoning to build multifamily housing in a single-family zone. The village denied the application after residents raised concerns about the future residents. The denial stood because the record showed legitimate land-use reasons rather than improper motive.
In 1971 Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation applied to the Village of Arlington Heights, Illinois, for rezoning of a 15-acre parcel from single-family to multiple-family classification. Using federal financial assistance under section 236 of the National Housing Act, MHDC planned to build 190 clustered townhouse units for low- and moderate-income tenants. The Village denied the rezoning request. MHDC, joined by other plaintiffs, brought suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Arlington Heights is a suburb of Chicago located about 26 miles northwest of the downtown Loop. Most land in the Village is zoned for detached single-family homes. The Clerics of St. Viator own an 80-acre parcel just east of the center of Arlington Heights that includes a high school, a novitiate building, and vacant land. Since 1959 all land surrounding the Viatorian property has been zoned R-3 for single-family use with relatively small minimum lot-size requirements. In 1970 MHDC entered into a 99-year lease and accompanying agreement of sale covering a 15-acre site in the southeast corner of the Viatorian property. The agreement set a bargain purchase price of $300,000 with the sale contingent upon securing zoning clearances and section 236 housing assistance. MHDC's plans for the Lincoln Green project called for 20 two-story buildings containing 190 units with a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom configurations and a large portion of the site left open. The development did not conform to the Village zoning ordinance and required rezoning to the R-5 multiple-family classification. MHDC filed a petition for rezoning with the Village Plan Commission accompanied by supporting materials that included an affirmative marketing plan designed to assure racial integration. MHDC consulted with Village staff and incorporated every recommended change into the plans. During the spring of 1971 the Plan Commission considered the proposal at three public meetings that drew large crowds. Opponents focused on the zoning aspects. They argued that the area had always been single-family. They also argued that the buffer policy adopted in 1962 called for R-5 zoning primarily to serve as a buffer between single-family development and commercial or manufacturing districts. At the close of the third meeting the Plan Commission recommended denial. On September 28, 1971, the Village Board denied the rezoning by a 6-1 vote. In June 1972 MHDC and three Black individuals filed suit against the Village. A second nonprofit corporation and an individual of Mexican-American descent intervened. After a bench trial the District Court entered judgment for the Village in 1974. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed in 1975. The Supreme Court granted the Village's petition for certiorari in 1975.
View caseThe rezoning must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. When the change benefits only one parcel without a legitimate public purpose, courts may invalidate it as arbitrary.
No. The owner generally retains a vested right to continue the use that was lawful when established. The right may be lost only through abandonment, statutory discontinuance, or a reasonable amortization period in some jurisdictions.
A vested right arises when the owner obtains a valid permit or relies on existing zoning and then makes substantial good-faith expenditures or changes position. Once vested, the rezoning cannot defeat those expectations.
The legislative body must provide notice and hold a public hearing. The amendment must also satisfy substantive requirements of relating substantially to public welfare and avoiding arbitrary spot zoning.
Conditional zoning imposes applicant-agreed restrictions such as height limits or traffic improvements in exchange for the zoning change. It remains subject to the same notice, hearing, and public-welfare requirements as other rezonings.
…The record specifically refers to only two such efforts: that of Penfield Better Homes Corp., in late 1969, to obtain the rezoning of certain land in Penfield to allow the construction of subsidized cooperative townhouses that could be purchased by persons of moderate income; and a similar effort by O'Brien Homes,…