Due Process, Equal Protection, and Land Use under Land Use Law
Due Process in Land Use Law
Due Process under the Constitution (primarily the 14th Amendment) ensures that the government does not deprive any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In land use, due process protects property owners from arbitrary or unfair governmental actions regarding zoning, land development, and land use regulations.
Types of Due Process:
Procedural Due Process
This requires fair procedures before the government can deprive a person of property rights. In land use, this means notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to appeal when a zoning decision or land use permit is denied or revoked.
Substantive Due Process
This protects against arbitrary or unreasonable government actions that affect property rights. Land use regulations must have a rational basis and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
Key Case Law on Due Process and Land Use:
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)
Though not a land use case, this Supreme Court ruling established the importance of procedural due process, requiring a hearing before the government deprives someone of a significant property interest. This principle extends to land use decisions affecting property rights.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
This is a foundational case for zoning law. The Court upheld zoning laws under substantive due process, ruling that zoning regulations are constitutional so long as they have a rational relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887)
Early case upholding state police powers to regulate property use. It recognized that restrictions for the public good do not violate due process if they are reasonable and not arbitrary.
Equal Protection in Land Use Law
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires that similarly situated persons be treated alike by the government. In land use, this means zoning and land regulations cannot discriminate unfairly against certain property owners or classes of people.
When Equal Protection Applies:
When the government classifies property owners or land uses differently without a legitimate reason.
When zoning codes discriminate based on race, religion, or other protected classes.
When the classification affects fundamental rights or involves a suspect class, strict scrutiny applies.
Key Case Law on Equal Protection and Land Use:
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977)
The Court looked at a zoning denial challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, requiring proof of discriminatory intent or purpose behind the zoning action. The case set the standard for analyzing discrimination claims in land use.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)
Although dealing with racially restrictive covenants rather than zoning, the Court held that judicial enforcement of racial covenants violates Equal Protection principles.
Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217 (1971)
The Court upheld a city’s closure of public swimming pools rather than desegregate them, illustrating limits of equal protection claims in land use/public facilities.
Land Use Law and Its Intersection with Due Process and Equal Protection
Land use law involves zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, variances, special use permits, and eminent domain. These regulations often impact property owners’ rights.
Zoning and Subdivision Regulations
These are governmental controls that regulate land use, density, setbacks, and building types. Due process requires that changes or enforcement of these laws be fair, with opportunity to be heard. Equal protection requires that zoning classifications are applied fairly and not discriminatorily.
Variances and Special Exceptions
Property owners may request variances or exceptions if the zoning regulation causes undue hardship. Due process ensures these requests are fairly considered, and equal protection prevents favoritism or discrimination.
Eminent Domain
Government’s power to take private property for public use, with just compensation. Procedural due process guarantees notice and hearing, while equal protection prevents discriminatory takings.
Landmark Land Use Law Cases Related to Due Process and Equal Protection:
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)
The Court ruled that land use regulations that limit property use do not necessarily violate substantive due process or the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause if they are reasonable and do not deny all economic use.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)
This case involved zoning laws limiting occupancy to nuclear families only. The Court struck down the ordinance under substantive due process because it interfered with family living arrangements.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Although primarily a racial discrimination case, this case shows the Supreme Court applying equal protection principles broadly, which informs land use challenges when zoning or restrictions discriminate by race.
Summary:
| Constitutional Principle | Application in Land Use | Important Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Due Process | Requires fair procedures and rational regulations when restricting land use or property rights. | Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926), Goldberg v. Kelly (1970), Penn Central (1978) |
| Equal Protection | Prevents arbitrary or discriminatory zoning or land use regulations; ensures similar treatment. | Arlington Heights (1977), Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), Moore v. East Cleveland (1977) |
RELATED Blog
0 comments