Zoning & Planning

Worth subscribing: a newer (the archives go back to this post, late 2025) from lawprof Stephen R. Miller, named “Euclid Land.” The title should give you a hint about what the topic is, “a conversation about land use reform with law professor, urban planner, and author Stephen R. Miller.”…
Continue Reading New(ish) Substack: “Euclid Land” (Prof. Stephen Miller)

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following (because it is one of ours). Our cert petition asks this Question Presented: “Does the protection the Takings Clause provides to land-use permit applicants encompass monetary demands beyond those imposed in lieu of a dedication of real property?” Five amici briefs have been filed, urging the Court to review the case. …
Continue Reading Amici Briefs In Latest SCOTUS Exactions Petition: Nollan/Dolan Governs Exactions Of Money

Here’s the latest in our continuing series of dirt law pilgrimages, where we visit the site of some of the more important cases in our favorite area of law. As every dirt lawyer knows, you can see photos, read descriptions, and study plat maps. But when it comes to understanding about the property at issue, nothing substitutes for getting your shoes in the dirt on-site, seeing the area for yourself, smelling the air. Walking the earth.
Continue Reading Property Pilgrimage: Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928)

It was on this day in 1928 when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its second most famous decision about zoning, Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928). We say “second” because everyone knows that the first is the Court’s decision issued just two years earlier which generally upheld comprehensive use, height, and density regulations as a valid exercise of the government’s police power to regulate property uses to further the public health, safety, welfare, or morals. See Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U S. 365 (1926).
Continue Reading You Don’t Look A Day Over 98, Nectow v. City of Cambridge

You land user types know that the concept of “vested rights” or “zoning estoppel” and related doctrines line nonconforming uses are very state-specific. From early vesting jurisdictions where merely filing an application for a permitted use locks in the then-existing restrictions on use, to places like California where you need to have driven the last nail before you can say you are vested. Then there are those jurisdictions somewhere in the middle which say there has to be some action by government that induces reasonable reliance in the form of expenditures.
Continue Reading Uno Reverse: Iowa Says That Until Government Regulates, Your Expectations To Use Your Property Can Never “Crystallize”

In a state like Vermont that is heavily dependent on tourism, it shouldn’t be all that surprising that one of the most prominent issues is the policy and legal fight over short-term rentals. In 2022, Burlington, the state’s largest city, tightened up its short-term rental regulations to prohibit “nonhost-occupied short-term rentals in Burlington with…

Here’s the latest in a case out of a storied New York City neighborhood that we have been following.

Today, our shop filed this cert petition, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision from the New York Court of Appeals (dun-dun) which held that New York City’s charging a massive fee…

We don’t know what the real story is in this report from SF Gate, “Calif. town pauses housing project after French Laundry chef criticism.” But if you had to pick a single story that captures a century of Euclidean vibe, where “neighborhood character” objections (first affirmed in that case) can kill what might be a good thing because neighbors can anonymously vote how someone uses their own property, you couldn’t do better than this one.
Continue Reading Euclid’s “Neighborhood Character” Vibe, Exemplified In Land Use Fight In The Heart Of The Napa Valley

Here’s a case we’ve been following (esp. because our firm is counsel for the two intervenors). In Montanans Against Irresponsible Densification, LLC v. Montana, No. DA 25-0200 (Mar. 17, 2026), the Montana Supreme Court upheld the “Montana miracle” housing and zoning reform statute against an equal protection challenge. This case is important not only because it upholds loosening of restrictions on housing development and private property rights, but because it also confirms the freedom of contract, and recognizes that private owner remain free to control the use of their own property in the best manner they see fit. …
Continue Reading YIMBY v NIMBY In Montana Supreme Court: “housing reform statutes do not violate the right to equal protection solely because the law treats people not subject to private covenants differently.”