AICP Planning Law Case Chart
Rich Ducker-SOG-January 2010
SUMMARY OF KEY PLANNING LAW CASES
SUBJECT
MATTER
Commercial
Rent Control
Churches
Developer
Exactions
Developer
Exactions
Developer
Exactions
Development
Moratorium
Development
Moratorium
Endangered
Species
Group Homes
Group Homes
Growth
Management
Growth
Management
Historic
Preservation
CASE
NAME
CONSTITUTIONAL OR
STATUTORY ISSUES
Takings Clause (inapplicability of
“substantially advances” test)
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (ruled
City of
unconstitutional as beyond legislative
Boerne
authority)
Del Monte
Takings Clause (applicability of rough
Dunes
proportionality test)
Takings Clause (applicability of rough
Dolan
proportionality test)
Takings Clause (development condition
Nollan
must be sufficiently related to program
purpose)
Takings Clause (U.S. Constitution
First English compels payment of temporary damages if
“taking” found)
Takings Clause (moratorium not a taking
Tahoe-Sierra
per se)
Endangered Species Act (destroying
Babbitt
habitat can be violation of act)
Equal Protection (requirement of a special
use permit for a group home for the
Cleburne
mentally retarded when not required for
similar uses violated equal protection)
Federal Fair Housing Act (zoning
City of
restrictions on unrelated persons living
Edmonds
together subject to act)
Due Process; Right to Travel
Ramapo
(adequate public facilities program
upheld)
Due Process (system establishing
Petaluma
annual building permit cap upheld)
Equal Protection; Due Process
(New York City's landmarks preservation
Penn
law upheld as applied to the Grand Central
Central
Terminal where owner could transfer
development rights)
Lingle
Year
of
Case
2005
1997
1999
1994
1987
1987
2002
1995
1985
1995
1972
1976
1978
Housing
Mount
Laurel I
Housing
Mount
Laurel II
Housing
Arlington
Heights
InvestmentBacked
Expectations
Palazzolo
Occupancy
Restrictions
City of Belle
Terre
Occupancy
Restrictions
Moore
Occupancy
Restrictions
City of
Edmonds
Public Use in
Eminent
Domain
Public Use in
Eminent
Domain
Public Use in
Eminent
Domain
Pre-Zoning
Regulations
Pre-Zoning
Regulations
Restrictions on
Land Use
Berman
Midkiff
Kelo
Hadacheck
Welsh
Keystone
Coal
Equal Protection (New Jersey Constitution
violated if “developing” community fails
to accommodate a "fair share" of
prospective regional housing needs of lowand moderate-income persons)
Equal Protection (obligation to
accommodate extends not just to
"developing" communities but also to all
municipalities classified by state as growth
areas)
Equal Protection (refusal to rezone to
accommodate a low- and moderateincome housing project not violation of
equal protection despite adverse,
disproportionate impact on AfricanAmericans)
Takings Clause
(takings analysis not irrelevant simply
because new owner acquired property after
new regulations became effective)
Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom
of Association (limit of no more than two
unrelated person living as unit not
unconstitutional)
Due Process (limit on related persons
living together as unit is unconstitutional)
Federal Fair Housing Act (zoning
restrictions on unrelated persons living
together subject to act)
Public Use Clause
(urban redevelopment is public use for
purposes of eminent domain)
Public Use Clause (Hawaiian land reform
legislation involved public use)
Public Use Clause (economic development
project in absence of blight can be a public
use)
Due Process (prohibition on certain
industrial uses upheld)
Due Process
(height limitations upheld)
Takings Clause (no facial taking where
coal mining operations prohibited from
causing subsidence damage to surface
structures; use of whole parcel considered)
1975
1983
1978
2001
1974
1977
1995
1954
1984
2005
1915
1909
1987
Restrictions on
Land Use
Lucas
Restrictions on
Land Use
Palazzolo
Restrictions on
Land Use
Penn
Central
Sexually
Oriented
Businesses
Young
Sexually
Oriented
Businesses
City of
Renton
Sexually
Oriented
Businesses
City of Erie
Signs and
Billboards
Taxpayers
for Vincent
Signs and
Billboards
Metromedia
Transfer of
Development
Rights
Penn
Central
Zoning
Referendum
City of
Eastlake
Takings Clause (coastal setback
prohibiting all practical use amounts to
taking)
Takings Clause (unconstitutional taking
may occur even if owner acquired
property after land restrictions became
effective; uses of whole parcel considered)
Takings Clause (balancing test of public
and private interests if some practical use
remains; whole parcel considered)
First Amendment; Equal Protection
(regulations requiring separation of adult
establishments from certain other uses not
unconstitutional)
First Amendment (adult uses adequately
accommodated, regulations upheld as
reasonable time, place, & manner
restrictions)
First Amendment (regulations requiring
exotic dancers to wear minimal clothing
not violation of freedom of expression)
First Amendment (ban on signs within
public rights-of-way not violation of free
speech)
First Amendment (ordinance invalidated
that placed tighter restrictions on signs
bearing non-commercial messages than on
commercial billboards)
Takings Clause (opportunity for
landowner to transfer development rights
can mitigate impact of development
restriction)
Due Process Clause (no violation if zoning
map may be amended by citizen
referendum)
1992
2001
1978
1976
1986
2000
1984
1981
1978
1976
The following cases addressed procedural questions involving takings claims and are not
included above:
San Diego Gas (1981), Hamilton Bank (1985), Yolo County (1986), Suitum
(1997), Agins (1980).