1) Zoning:
a) Statutes and ordiance, state use of police power
b) Exceptions:
i) Varianace:
(1) Undue hardship
(2) Allowing the variance will not upset the intent and purpose of the ordinance
ii) Special exceptions
(1) Legislative carve-outs
iii) Non-conforming Use
(1) Use that exists prior to the imposition of the zoning order or a change to the zoning
order
c) Rational basis test
i) Matter of policy health and safety of the citizens is a legitimate state interest, as long as the
legislature has a rational basis for passing the law, the law is valid
d) CASE:
i) Euclid
(1) A zoning ordinance as a valid exercise of the police power will only be declared
unconstitutional where its provisions are clearly arbitrary or unreasonable, having no
substantial relationship to the public health, safety and general welfare
ii) Belle Terre
(1) Can they limit unrelated persons that may live in a house as a single family?
(a) Yes; interest is controlling traffic, etc.
iii) Oxford House
(1) Tried to limit number of people living in a household
(2) Housing for recovering alcoholics
(3) FHA scrutiny -> suspect class
(4) Prohibits zoning ordinances from restricting accommodations of suspect classes (Rehab,
etc)
(a) If they don’t fit under the traditional family definition because it would be against
public policy
iv) Mount Laurel
(1) Public housing, low income
(2) State cannot its police power to discriminate lower income people
(a) Cannot claim localized interest as state wide interest
v) Moore
(1) Grandchildren different parent
(2) City claimed ordinance was to control over population
(3) Cuts into the traditional notion of what a family is
2) Takings
th
a) Eminent domain (5 amend)
i) Private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation
th
ii) 14 amendment allows application to state governments
b) A government regulation that limits the use of public property is a taking?
i) Public interest at stake
ii) Frustrates; how much the law frustrates distinct investment back expectations
(1) Penn Central
(a) Train station; owners wanted to build on top of station
(b) City may place restrictions on development individual historic landmarks without
constituting a taking
(i) Promote general welfare
iii) Extent of interference with owners property
(1) Penn Coal
(a) Private property may be regulated pursuant to police powers related to public interest but if
such regulation goes as far as to destroy or procreate a property right it becomes a taking
(b) Dissent?
iv) Discriminatory or arbitrary nature of regulations
(1) Are the rules discriminatory or arbitrary in nature?
(2) New case
v) Substantially related to promotion of public purpose
(1) Gov’t restrictions and regulations must be substantially related to the promotion of the public
purpose
c) CASE:
th
i) Kelo – 5 amendment
(1) Public use requirement is satisfied if it is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose
ii) Reg Taking -> PFEOS
d) Bright Line Rules:
i) Hadacheck
(1) Regulation of a property to abate a public nuisance is not a taking
ii) Loretto
(1) A permanent physical occupation of the owners property constitute a taking
(2) When the government authorizes a permanent physical occupation of an owner’s property, no
matter how small, it’s a taking regardless of the public interest that regulation may serve
iii) Lucas
(1) Regulation that denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land is a per-se taking
e) Balancing test
i) PFEDS