Analysis of Zoning Ordinances
| Author | W.L. Pollard |
| Published date | 01 May 1931 |
| Date | 01 May 1931 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271623115500208 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
60
Analysis
of
Zoning
Ordinances
By
W.
L.
POLLARD
Attorney
at
Law;
Special
Counsel,
Los
Angeles
Realty
Board
and
California
Real
Estate
Associa-
tion
on
City
Planning,
Zoning
and
Special
Assessment
Legislation,
1929,
Los
Angeles,
California
I T
is
rather
difficulty
to
analyze
a
typical
zoning
ordinance
and
by
such
analysis
suggest
a
working
pro-
gram
which
might
fit
the
needs
of
any
city.
Various
state
enabling
acts
set
up
specific
requirements
for
zoning
procedure;
city
charters
frequently
outline
in
detail
zoning
requirements;
and
inasmuch
as
the
scope
of
the
police
power
as
enunciated
by
the
decisions
of
the
respective
courts
of
last
resort
in
the
several
states
vary
somewhat,
each
city
must
of
necessity
provide
the
re-
finements
of
its
zoning
procedure
only
after
a
careful
analysis
of
basic
law,
charter
provisions,
general
laws,
and
court
decisions
governing
its
own
legislative
body.
These
laws
and
deci-
sions
give,
in
the
main,
the
limitations
governing
the
legal
rights
of
the
city.
The
city
must
mold
its
zoning
ordi-
nance
accordingly,
to
fit
its
require-
ments
as
nearly
as
may
be.
ENABLING
ACTS
In
New
Jersey
and
Massachusetts,
constitutional
amendments
have
given
direct
zoning
authority
independent
of
the
general
police
power
of
the
state.
California,
Illinois,
and
most
of
the
other
states
have
enacted
special
en-
abling
acts,
particularly
recognizing
zoning
and
the
scope
of
zoning
author-
ity,
stating
what
may
be
done
under
a
zoning
ordinance,
and
giving
to
the
city
a
procedure
which
must
be
fol-
lowed
in
the
preparation
and
the
enact-
ment
of
the
ordinance.
As
is
the
case
under
the
California
Enabling
Act,
there
is
no
definite
grant
of
power
by
the
act
itself,
as
each
city
in
the
state
has,
by
Section
11,
Article
11,
of
the
California
Constitution,
the
authority
to
execute
the
full
scope
of
the
police
power
on
all
matters
within
its
boundaries;
but
the
California
Enabling
Act
of
1917
sets
up
definite
procedure
which
must
be
followed
in
all
California
cities
except
charter
cities,
in
order
that
the
ordinance
be
valid.’
The
Illinois
Enabling
Act
is
much
broader
in
its
scope
than
the
California
act,
and
goes
into
greater
detail.
The
title
to
this
act
states
that
it
is
an
act
to
confer
certain
additional
powers
upon
city
councils
in
cities
and
presidents
and
boards
of
trustees
in
villages
and
in-
corporated
towns
concerning
buildings
and
structures,
the
intensity
of
use
of
lot
areas,
the
classification
of
trades,
industries,
buildings,
and
structures,
with
respect
to
location
and
regulation,
the
creation
of
districts
of
different
classes,
the
establish-
ment
of
regulations
and
restrictions
appli-
cable
thereto,
the
establishment
of
boards
of
appeals
and
the
review
of
the
decisions
of
such
boards
by
the
court.
The
theories
in
California
and
Illi-
nois
differ.
In
California,
the
act
merely
sets
up
a
procedure
for
the
cities
to
follow
and
does
not
confer
on
the
cities
any
authority.
In
fact,
it
limits
the
cities,
in
that
it
provides
a
definite
method
of
procedure
which
if
not
fol-
lowed
invalidates
zoning
ordinances;
while
the
Illinois
act
states
in
its
title
that
it
confers
additional
powers,
and
in
its
first
section
provides:
In
addition
to
existing
powers,
and
to
the
end
that
adequate
light,
pure
air
and
safety
from
fire
and
other
dangers
may
be
1
Hurst
v.
City
of
Burlingame,
207
Cal.
134.
To continue reading
Request your trial