AICP Exam Prep – Law Question and Answer 2023

Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case. Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The court first upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court. Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928) - The Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972) - The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the involved facilities themselves. Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975) - the Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued. Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976) - The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why they would not regulate greenhouse gases. Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway. SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015) - In this case the Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violates the Fair Housing Act. Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976) - The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981) - The Court found that commercial and non-commercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned non-commercial signs. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984) - The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986) - The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district.