AICP FINAL EXAM AND EXAM PREP 2026/2027 ACTUAL EXAMS
LATEST UPDATE | GRADED A+
Zoning Cases (Summary) - ANSWER Welch v. Swasey; (1909) regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback regulations
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) community believed that there was a threat of a
nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. Alfred Bettman
Nectow v. City of Cambridge;(1928)
rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance. no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the
health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Before Comprehensive Zoning - ANSWER Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was
based on nuisance laws. Under common law,
persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. If this enjoyment is
interrupted, for example through noise, pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance.
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The Court established the right of
municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of
building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a
proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due
process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The state had a
statute authorizing cities and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the
building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along
particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain
localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the
height of buildings.' The court held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The Court first
approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los
, Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th
Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - 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 key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid's
zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of
the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it 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) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - Two years after
Euclid v. Ambler, 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). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972) - ANSWER
GM CASE - 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 facilities themselves.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
(1975) - ANSWER GM CASE - 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) -
ANSWER GM CASE - The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013) - ANSWER The Court found that the 1875 General
Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad's land.
When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the
easement is
abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - ANSWER The Court held that the EPA must
provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse
gases.
LATEST UPDATE | GRADED A+
Zoning Cases (Summary) - ANSWER Welch v. Swasey; (1909) regulate building height.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; (1912) first approved the use of setback regulations
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) regulation of the location of land uses.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) community believed that there was a threat of a
nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. Alfred Bettman
Nectow v. City of Cambridge;(1928)
rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance. no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the
health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public).
Before Comprehensive Zoning - ANSWER Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was
based on nuisance laws. Under common law,
persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. If this enjoyment is
interrupted, for example through noise, pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance.
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91 (1909) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The Court established the right of
municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of
building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a
proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due
process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court (1912) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The state had a
statute authorizing cities and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the
building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along
particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain
localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the
height of buildings.' The court held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - The Court first
approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los
, Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th
Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - 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 key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid's
zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of
the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it 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) - ANSWER ZONING CASE - Two years after
Euclid v. Ambler, 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). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972) - ANSWER
GM CASE - 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 facilities themselves.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
(1975) - ANSWER GM CASE - 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) -
ANSWER GM CASE - The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013) - ANSWER The Court found that the 1875 General
Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad's land.
When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the
easement is
abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006) - ANSWER The Court held that the EPA must
provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse
gases.
