Also known as: zoning ordinances · zoning law · land-use ordinance
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A municipal regulation that divides land within a city into districts and restricts the uses to which land in each district may be put. The regulation typically also controls building height, lot coverage, and density. Such an ordinance is valid when the classification bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, but it is invalid when applied arbitrarily or without that relation.
Zeke Zola applied for a special-use permit to open a group home for adults with intellectual disabilities in a residential zone. The city council denied the permit after neighbors expressed fears tied solely to the residents' mental condition. A court reviewing the denial finds no legitimate governmental interest and holds the action violates equal protection.
Zion Zhao owns a single parcel surrounded by single-family homes. He petitions the city council to rezone only his lot for a commercial gas station. The council approves the change without showing any public purpose beyond benefiting Zhao. A court invalidates the amendment as arbitrary spot zoning lacking a substantial relation to public welfare.
Zoya Zamorano owns land on one side of a newly drawn zoning boundary that prohibits all commercial use. The same type of land across the line permits retail development. Because the boundary bears no substantial relation to health or safety and arbitrarily deprives Zoya of beneficial use, a court declares the classification invalid as applied.
Zara Zuberi challenges a new city ordinance that places her parcel in a residential district and bars industrial operations. The ordinance divides the entire municipality into use districts with classifications that reasonably advance public health and safety. A court upholds the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power.
Zuri Zuberi and five college friends rent a house in a zone limited to traditional family units. The city enforces the ordinance against them but allows larger extended families. A court sustains the restriction under rational basis review because it promotes a preferred residential character.
Belle Terre is a village on Long Island’s north shore consisting of about 220 homes inhabited by 700 people. Its total land area is less than one square mile. The village has restricted land use to one-family dwellings and excludes lodging houses, boarding houses, fraternity houses, or multiple-dwelling houses. The ordinance defines “family” as one or more persons related by blood, adoption, or marriage living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit, exclusive of household servants. Up to two persons living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit though not related by blood, adoption, or marriage shall be deemed to constitute a family. Appellees the Dickmans own a house in the village. In December 1971 they leased it for an 18-month term to Michael Truman. Bruce Boraas later became a co-lessee. Anne Parish then moved into the house along with three others. These six individuals are students at the nearby State University at Stony Brook, and none is related to the others by blood, adoption, or marriage. When the village served the Dickmans with an Order to Remedy Violations of the ordinance, the owners plus three tenants brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking an injunction and a declaratory judgment that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The District Court held the ordinance constitutional. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. During the litigation the lease expired and was extended. Anne Parish moved out. Thereafter the other five students left, and the owners now hold the home out for sale or rent, including to student groups.
View caseZimmerman Steel's employee housing policy allows a grandmother to live with her grandchildren in a single-family zone. The city cites the ordinance and orders her to leave because the children are not her direct descendants under the defined family unit. A court strikes down the application as violating substantive due process by intruding on family autonomy.
In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.
View caseThe ordinance violates equal protection when the denial rests solely on prejudice against persons with intellectual disabilities. Even under rational basis review the government must advance a legitimate interest rather than mere bias.
A rezoning amendment is invalid when it singles out one parcel or small area for a use inconsistent with surrounding zones and lacks a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
The classification is invalid when it bears no substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare and arbitrarily deprives the owner of the beneficial use of the property.
Such an ordinance survives rational basis review when it promotes a preferred residential environment and quiet family character, but it fails when it intrudes on extended family living arrangements protected by substantive due process.
…Avenue to a depth of 150 feet came under U-1 district and was available only for single family dwellings. An examination of the ordinance and subsequent amendments, and a comparison of their terms with the maps, shows very clearly, however, that this view was incorrect. Appellee’s brief correctly interpreted the ordinance:…