South Euclid

Home > Places > United States and Canada > U.S. Political Geography

Zoning is the process by which a local government regulates the use of privately owned land within its jurisdiction. A municipality or county usually derives authority to engage in zoning from an enabling statute adopted by the state legislature. The enabling statute constitutes a delegation of the state's police power to regulate land use to promote the public welfare. Under this authority, the local legislative body, such as the city council, enacts a comprehensive zoning scheme by which the entire community is carved into discrete sections or zones. Certain uses are allowed in each zone. For example, only residences may be permitted in one area, whereas factories may be authorized elsewhere.

Predicated on traditional principles of common‐law nuisance, zoning became popular early in the twentieth century. Nonetheless, the notion of zoning was not uncritically embraced by the judiciary. State courts initially disagreed as to whether zoning ordinances were constitutional, and the decisions conflicted regarding the validity of excluding certain uses from certain areas. Debate centered on questions of due process, equal protection, and taking private property without just compensation. Ultimately, the constitutionality of zoning as a land‐control device was sustained by the Supreme Court in the seminal case of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926).

Notwithstanding the Euclid decision, many aspects of zoning required refinement and further judicial scrutiny. The fundamental problem was that, although a zoning scheme might be reasonable in general terms, it could have an inappropriately harsh impact on certain parcels of land. The Supreme Court recognized this possibility in Euclid and in the subsequent case of Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928) actually found a zoning ordinance unconstitutional as it applied to a specific tract. Nectow was the forerunner of much of our modern zoning litigation; today, landowners frequently assert that a local zoning ordinance is invalid with respect to a particular parcel of property.

A local legislative body may rezone to correct deficiencies in its original zoning scheme. Furthermore, zoning ordinances contain administrative mechanisms designed to fine‐tune the general scheme and thereby avoid disparate impact on landowners in the community. An administrative agency, such as a board of zoning appeals, is generally authorized to grant variances when the zoning scheme produces “unnecessary hardship” on individual landowners. The same body also has the power to grant conditional‐use permits for which provision has been made in the ordinance itself. Moreover, nonconforming uses that antedate the zoning ordinance are permitted to continue.

Since the mid‐twentieth century, the zoning concept has been utilized in novel ways to address various urban and suburban problems. Regulating land use to promote aesthetic values, to preserve landmarks or historical districts, and to manage growth are a few examples. These modern adaptations have often been challenged, and after 1970 a number of land‐use regulation cases reached the Supreme Court.

During this period, the Court frequently considered whether certain zoning or related action by a local government exceeded its regulatory authority and constituted taking property without compensation. In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978), the city employed a landmark preservation ordinance to prevent construction of an office building over Grand Central Terminal. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this action, noting that under the ordinance the landowner could still make reasonable use of the premises and could transfer development rights to other parcels. Conversely, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992), the Court held that (absent state nuisance or property law dictating a contrary result) an uncompensated “per se” taking occurred when a state statute forbidding any significant development on two oceanfront building lots eliminated “all economically beneficial use” of those parcels.

The Court also addressed a vexing question regarding remedies available to an aggrieved landowner. In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles (1987), the Court recognized the right of a landowner to obtain compensation for the temporary taking of property that may result from the adverse impact of an ordinance ultimately declared invalid. However, in Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), the Court concluded that building moratoria do not amount to per se takings for the duration that they are in place.

Notwithstanding such Supreme Court decisions, it remains difficult to ascertain when a land‐use regulation constitutes a permanent or temporary taking. Hence, the regulation/taking controversy continues.

Bibliography

Daniel R. Mandelker , Land Use Law, 5th ed. (2003).

Jon W. Bruce

South Euclid , city (1990 pop. 23,866), Cuyahoga co., NE Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland ; inc. as a city 1940. Mostly residential, it is the site of Notre Dame College.