Editor's note: We're thrilled to offer you a comprehensive overview of the challenges faced by planners and planning commissioners when dealing with zoning and land use law issues. Although we provide valuable insights, we strongly advise consulting with your municipal attorney, as laws and legal practices can differ from state to state.
Occasionally, planning boards or commissions encounter dilemmas when a petitioner seeks to re-zone a property, only to face objections claiming it would result in illegal spot zoning. This puts the plan commission in a precarious position: approve the development and risk making an improper, if not illegal, decision, or deny the development, missing out on potential financial benefits for the community. To navigate this challenging situation, it is crucial for the commission to have a clear understanding of what spot zoning entails.
Unraveling the Concept of Spot Zoning
Spot zoning is commonly defined as "the act of designating a small parcel of land for a use that is significantly different from the surrounding area, primarily benefiting the owner of the property and to the detriment of other owners." However, spot zoning is often seen as the polar opposite of planned zoning. When evaluating spot zoning cases, courts typically consider the compatibility of the zoning with surrounding uses, as well as the characteristics of the land, parcel size, and the extent of the "public benefit." Most importantly, the consistency of the disputed zoning with the municipality's comprehensive plan plays a vital role in determining spot zoning.
"Counties and municipalities develop comprehensive plans to outline their long-term planning objectives and address the community's needs. These plans serve as a comprehensive document that guides zoning decisions over time, mapping out future land use patterns and offering insights into changes in zoning ordinances and zoning district maps. The key point is that rezonings should align with the policies and land use designations specified in the comprehensive plan."
illustration by Paul Hoffman for PlannersWeb
Understanding spot zoning requires a careful examination of the unique circumstances surrounding each case. Some courts even conduct a cost/benefit analysis to ascertain whether the challenged zoning qualifies as spot zoning. In the Griswold v. Homer case, for example, the Alaska Supreme Court considered factors such as the cost-benefit analysis, the size of the parcel in question, and the alignment of rezoning with the comprehensive plan. Ultimately, the court ruled against spot zoning, highlighting how the underlying ordinance provided genuine benefits to the entire city rather than just benefiting a specific landowner.
While spot zoning is often found when an area is surrounded by incompatible zones, it is less likely to occur when a rezoning extends the perimeter of an existing zone to include the disputed area. Additionally, spot zoning is less common in mixed-use or transitional areas, with residential neighborhoods being more prone to such zoning practices.
When courts declare spot zoning invalid, they base their ruling on three factors: (1) the lack of connection between the rezoning and a legitimate power or purpose, (2) the absence of conformity to the comprehensive plan, or (3) the existence of an unreasonable inequality in the treatment of similarly situated lands. For example, spot zoning can be found when a relatively small parcel or area is rezoned to a classification that contradicts the comprehensive plan.
Refuting Spot Zoning: A Delicate Balance
Interestingly, spot zoning can be refuted when the challenged zoning aligns with the recent zoning trends in the specific area, rather than just adhering to the present surrounding uses. It is crucial to address each factual scenario individually instead of merely labeling it as spot zoning. Notably, an Illinois court ruled that the rezoning of small parcels inconsistent with the zoning of surrounding areas isn't necessarily unlawful, highlighting that the parcel's size is just one aspect to consider in determining spot zoning.
Furthermore, a claim of spot zoning may also lack merit when zoning or planning regulations define the disputed property's boundaries as a demarcation line between zoning districts, appropriately separating one district from another.
Most importantly, if the zoning aligns with a comprehensive plan, it is typically not classified as spot zoning.
"What's a Planning Commission to Do? When considering zoning map amendments, the planning commission or board must assess whether the petitioner has met the traditional standards supporting their application. More importantly, they must scrutinize the potential for spot zoning. The commission should thoroughly examine the comprehensive plan and the surrounding uses of the property in question. Although the commission is not qualified to make legal determinations regarding spot zoning, they play a pivotal role in identifying potential issues. It is advisable for the commission to defer its decision and consult with the municipal attorney before voting to approve the rezoning and forwarding it to the governing body for adoption."
Summing Up: Decoding Spot Zoning
Spot zoning necessitates a case-by-case assessment, considering the unique facts and circumstances surrounding each situation. When allegations of spot zoning arise, courts carefully examine factors such as parcel size, anticipated public benefit, consistency with the community's comprehensive plan, and conformity with surrounding zoning and uses to establish the validity of the rezoning.
Dan Shapiro is a partner at the law firm of Robbins, Salomon and Patt, Ltd in Chicago, Illinois. With expertise in land use, zoning, governmental relations, municipal law, and civil litigation, Dan represents a diverse range of private developers and governmental entities. His clients value his close guidance on key concerns. He has successfully handled legislative and administrative matters before plan commissions, zoning boards, and various village, city, and county bodies. Dan is also an adjunct professor teaching land use at Kent Law School and serves as the Chairman of the Village of Deerfield (Illinois) Plan Commission.
