Zoning

• Author: Daniel R. Mandelker, Barbara Ross
• Pages: 2944-2945

Page 2944

When a local government decides how to allocate land uses it acts under the POLICE POWER exercised by the states and their governmental subdivisions to regulate for the public health, safety, and welfare. The first zoning ordinances appeared early in the twentieth century as a result of urbanization and the encroachment of factories and noxious uses in residential neighborhoods. In EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY (1926) the Supreme Court upheld a comprehensive local zoning ordinance, rejecting a SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS attack. Although today's zoning ordinances are more sophisticated than the simple division of land uses upheld in Euclid, the basic constitutional issues raised by zoning decisions remain an unusually stable area of constitutional law.

Because a zoning ordinance is adopted by a legislative body, and because zoning amendments are legislative decisions in most states, the constitutional scrutiny applied to zoning is no different from that applied to LEGISLATION at any governmental level. The courts use the due process analysis of Euclid to uphold zoning if they find a reasonable relationship between the zoning and the city's police

Page 2945

power objectives. Like other social and economic legislation, zoning comes to court clothed with a presumption of validity. A court will not question the wisdom or the motives of legislators. If a court finds any RATIONAL BASIS to support zoning as an implementation of the public health, safety, and welfare, the ordinance will be held valid. A court considers factors such as increased traffic and congestion, compatibility with adjacent uses, and impact on land values of neighboring properties. Courts often apply a fairly debatable rule: if reasonable minds can differ on the reasonableness of an ordinance, the municipal decision must be upheld. Some state courts are more willing than the federal courts to use theories of STATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to strike down zoning regulations.

Although a court may be reluctant to question the police power objectives of zoning, it may be more inclined to examine the effects of a zoning restriction on the value of property. Even when a zoning ordinance achieves public objectives, it may be held to be a TAKING OF PROPERTY if it denies a property owner all economic use of his land. The leading case is Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1972).

Other guarantees may also serve as bases for constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances. The...