A legislative change to a zoning ordinance or map that alters the permitted uses or development standards for designated land. The change requires notice and a public hearing and must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Such amendments may create or eliminate nonconforming uses, confer vested rights when substantial expenditures occur in reliance on prior zoning, or trigger challenges for spot zoning when they single out one parcel without a legitimate public purpose.
See Our Sources· 5 primary sources
Common Law
Restatements
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Nonconforming Park Faces Phase-Out
Zinnia Zhou operated a forty-year mobile-home park under prior zoning. After the city enacted a zoning amendment rezoning the corridor for luxury condos, Zinnia had already obtained a valid building permit and spent over eight hundred thousand dollars on plumbing and framing. The amendment included a ten-year amortization period for all nonconforming parks. A court must decide whether the amendment lawfully terminates the use or whether Zinnia's expenditures created a vested right that survives the change.
Developer Secures Vested Rights
Zola Zanders obtained a building permit under existing agricultural zoning and spent substantial sums installing utilities and foundations for an orchard expansion. The city then passed a zoning amendment reclassifying the area as conservation open space. Because Zola acted in good-faith reliance on the permit and made concrete expenditures before the amendment, a court will likely recognize a vested right to complete the development despite the new restrictions.
Council Approves Single-Parcel Amendment
Zara Zuberi, an environmental nonprofit, applied to rezone one lakeshore parcel from strict conservation to a research district. After published notice and a public hearing, the city council adopted a zoning amendment limited to that parcel and imposed building-size limits plus habitat-restoration conditions. Adjacent owner Zebulon Zimmerman challenged the amendment as arbitrary spot zoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The court must weigh the public benefits of conservation education against the single-parcel nature of the change.
Spot-Zoning Claim Tests Public Purpose
Zack Zuniga sought a zoning amendment for a single parcel inside a protected habitat corridor to allow a private research center. The amendment would permit uses inconsistent with surrounding conservation zoning and the comprehensive plan. Because the change primarily benefits one landowner without a broader public purpose, a court may invalidate it as impermissible spot zoning that denies equal protection to neighboring owners.
Conditional Rezoning Includes Special Exception
Zavier Ziegler applied for a zoning amendment to allow a soil-treatment facility on land previously limited to conservation uses. The city granted the amendment subject to odor-control conditions and later issued a special exception after finding that performance standards were met. The procedures followed state statute and local ordinance requirements for conditional zoning and special exceptions.
Open-Space Zoning Limits Density
A landowner challenged zoning amendments that placed five acres in an open-space district permitting only one to five residences. The ordinances were adopted to implement a comprehensive plan for open-space preservation. Because the restrictions bore a substantial relation to legitimate public purposes, the amendments survived facial attack under the police power.
Agins v. City of Tiburon447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980)
After the appellants acquired five acres of unimproved land in the city of Tiburón, California, for residential development, the city was required by state law to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open-space land. In response, the city adopted two ordinances that modified existing zoning requirements and placed the appellants’ property in an RPD-1 Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone. Density restrictions permit the appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their five-acre tract. The appellants never sought approval for development of their land under the zoning ordinances. Shortly after it enacted the ordinances, the city began eminent domain proceedings against the appellants’ land, but the following year the city abandoned those proceedings and its complaint was dismissed, with the appellants reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with the action.
The appellants filed a two-part complaint against the city in State Superior Court. The first cause of action sought two million dollars in damages for inverse condemnation. The second cause of action requested a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The complaint alleged that land in Tiburón has greater value than any other suburban property in the State of California. The ridge-lands that appellants own possess magnificent views of San Francisco Bay and the scenic surrounding areas and have the highest market values of all lands in Tiburón. The appellants contended that rezoning forever prevented development for residential use and completely destroyed the value of the property for any purpose or use whatsoever. The appellants also contended that the city's aborted attempt to acquire the land through eminent domain had destroyed the use of the land during the pendency of the condemnation proceedings.
The city demurred, claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, granting the appellants leave to amend the cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment, but the appellants did not avail themselves of that opportunity. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1980.
4 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What procedural steps must a municipality follow to enact a valid zoning amendment?
The legislative body must provide published notice and conduct a public hearing before adopting the amendment. The change must also bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Supporting sources
When does a zoning amendment create an invalid spot-zoning claim?
Spot zoning occurs when an amendment singles out one parcel or small area for a use inconsistent with the surrounding zone and the comprehensive plan without a legitimate public purpose. Courts may invalidate the change if it amounts to an arbitrary favor to one owner rather than a community benefit.
Supporting sources
How can a landowner acquire vested rights against a later zoning amendment?
A landowner may obtain a vested right to complete a development when, in good-faith reliance on a permit or existing zoning, the owner makes substantial expenditures or otherwise changes position so that denying the right would be inequitable. Jurisdictions differ on whether a valid permit plus substantial construction is required or whether a balancing test applies.
Supporting sources
What happens to an existing nonconforming use after a zoning amendment?
The owner generally retains a vested right to continue the lawful preexisting use. The right may be lost through abandonment, statutory discontinuance, or, in some jurisdictions, a reasonable amortization period that phases out the use.
Supporting sources
of a 15-acre parcel from single-family to multiple-family classification. Using federal financial assistance, MHDC planned to build 190 clustered townhouse units for low- and…
plan under rational-basis review). JUSTICE BREYER’s dissent next looks for authority to a footnote in Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 , 458 U. S. 457, 472, n. 15 (1982),…
Business Associations Agency and PartnershipRights of partners among themselves · Profits and lossesUBEFoundational