Zahn v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles
| Citation | 274 U.S. 325,71 L.Ed. 1074,47 S.Ct. 594 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 196,196 |
| Parties | ZAHN et al. v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. A. J. Hill, of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. Lucius P. Green and Jess E. Stephens, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants in error.
This is a proceeding in mandamus brought in the state court to compel defendants in error to issue a building permit enabling plaintiffs in error to erect a business building upon a lot lying within a district of the city of Los Angeles restricted by the zoning ordinance of that city against buildings of that character. The ordinance creates five zones, designated as 'A.' 'B.' 'C.' 'D,' and 'E.' respectively, and classifies the kind of buildings, structures, and improvements which may be erected in each. The ordinance is of the now familiar comprehensive type, but in the main regulates only the character of buildings which lawfully may be erected, and does not prescribe height and area limitations. It is assailed as being repugnant to the due process of law and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The property of plaintiffs in error is in zone 'B,' in which, generally stated, the use is limited to buildings for residential purposes churches, private clubs, educational, and similar purposes. All buildings for private business are excluded, with the exception of offices of persons practicing medicine. The state Supreme Court, in a well-reasoned opinion, upheld the ordinance and denied the relief sought. 195 Cal. 497, 234 P. 388. And see Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381, 38 A. L. R. 1479.
The constitutional validity of the ordinance in its general scope is settled by the recent decision of this court in Euclid v. Ambler Co., 272 U. S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303, and upon the record here we find no warrant for saying that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the present case. The property of plaintiffs in error adjoins Wilshire avenue, a main artery of travel through and beyond the city, and if such property were available for business purposes its market value would be greatly enhanced. The lands within the district were, when the ordinance was adopted, sparsely occupied by buildings, those in which business was carried on being limited to a few real estate offices, a grocery store, a market, a fruit stand, and a two-story business block. Much of the land adjoining the boulevard within the restricted district had already been sold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc.
...(Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 339, 175 P.2d at p. 548, quoting from Zahn v. Board of Public Works (1927) 274 U.S. 325 at p. 328, 47 S.Ct. 594, 71 L.Ed. 1074.) The mere fact that some uses of the property may prove to be similar does not render the ordinance undu......
-
Davis v. Beeler
...not in the science but in the practicing of it, to the definite injury of credulous sufferers. In Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325, 328, 47 S.Ct. 594, 595, 71 L.Ed. 1074, 1076, the Supreme Court of the United States said: "* * * The most that can be said is that whether that dete......
-
City of Jackson v. McPherson
...v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 477, 234 P. 381; Zahn v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 195 Cal. 497, affirmed 274 U.S. 325; Fourcade v. City of San Francisco, 196 Cal. 655, 238, P. 934; Building Inspector v. Cook, 54 Cal. 320, 130 P. 828; Averch v. City and County ......
-
Carter v. Bluefield
...ordinance was sustained, and in others the challenged ordinance was held to be invalid. Zahn v. Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles, 274 U. S. 325, 47 S. Ct. 594, 71 L. ed. 1074; State of Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Company v. Roberge, 278 U. S. 116, 49 S. Ct. 50, 73......
-
The 'Euclidean' Strategy: Authorizing and Implementing the Legislative Districting of Permissible Land Uses
...Euclid v. Ambler , the Justices offered three other opinions in cases involving challenges to zoning. 19 In Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325, 327-28 (1927), Justice Sutherland, relying on the rationale of Euclid v. Ambler for a unanimous Court, affirmed a decision of the Californ......
-
A REIGN OF ERROR: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND STARE DECISIS.
...Seattle Title & Tr. Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116, 119-20 (1928)); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 605 (1927); Zahn v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 274 U.S. 325, 325-26 (1927). In the fifth of the early zoning cases decided by the Supreme Court, even though the Court opinion focused on due process, t......
-
The Limitations of 'Sic Utere Tuo...': Planning by Private Law Devices
...regulations: Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928); Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603 (1927); Zahn v. Board of Pub. Works, 274 U.S. 325 (1927); Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). 26 Nevertheless, as many of the succeeding decisions from state and federal trial......
-
Reciprocity of advantage: the antidote to the antidemocratic trend in regulatory takings.
...26, 32-33 (1954) (Court does not sit to determine whether particular housing project is or is not desirable); Zahn v. Bd. of Pub. Works, 274 U.S. 325, 328 (1927) (Court will not substitute its judgment for that of legislative body charged with primary duty to determine the question); Villag......