Zoning & Planning

Subscribe to Zoning & Planning via RSS

Euclid_front

Tomorrow, November 22, 2025 is the 99th anniversary of the day in 1926 when the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Nov. 22, 1926).

You know this one (and can you call yourself a dirt lawyer if you don’t?). It’s the one in which the Supreme Court first upheld — against a facial due process challenge — the validity of this thing we now call “Euclidean zoning.”

In the intervening century, zoning has become a catch-all term for all sorts of regulatory restrictions on the uses of real property, land users know that “zoning” — ackshually — refers only to the regulation and separation of uses, restrictions on density, and height regulation. At least that’s how it began. The Euclid court concluded this was mostly nuisance prevention, so no worries. But we’d…

Continue Reading You Don’t Look A Day Over 98, Euclid

When an opinion starts off with “[t]his zoning/inverse condemnation case revolves around the availability of parking…” you kinda know, whatever the issues might be, that the court isn’t likely headed in a good direction for the claimant.

That’s exactly how the Supreme Court of South Carolina began The Gulfstream Cafe, Inc. v. Georgetown County, No. 28303 (Oct. 29, 2025).

The bottom line is what you might expect, given that opening. The court rejected the takings and due process claims by a restaurant located in a special development district that the County’s permitting another restaurant to set up nearby violated the first restaurant’s rights.

The essence of the takings claim is that Gulfstream Cafe (the first restaurant) has been there for quite a while, and has an easement to allow its diners to use certain parking spaces. For many years, things worked out: the adjacent building housed a marina business…

Continue Reading South Carolina: Restaurant Was Not Taken When County Permitted Another Adjacent Restaurant
Texas court of appeals fifth

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. 

Recall that a couple of months ago, the court of appeals held that the challengers were likely to succeed in their challenge to Dallas’s short-term rental ban. The case was up on appeal from a preliminary injunction, so there wasn’t a lot in that decision. 

Now, we have a decision after fuller consideration after the city asked for en banc review. In City of Dallas v. Dallas Short-Term Rental Alliance, No. 05-23-01309 (July 18, 2025), the court again concluded that the challenger property owners were likely to succeed on their claim that the city’s ban on short-term renting violated the due-course-of-law requirement under the Texas Constitution:

Under the circumstances, we conclude appellees Dallas Short Term-Rental Alliance, Sammy Aflalo, Vera Elkins, and Denise Lowry proved their probable right to relief against the City’s zoning ordinance under their due-course-of-law argument…

Continue Reading Tex App: Like We Said Before, Property Owners Are Likely To Succeed In Challenge To Short-Term Rental Ban

Yes, the mysterious ducks remain — and seem to have multiplied.

It’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that starting today, we’re back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to teach two courses:

  • Eminent Domain and Property Rights (W&M is one of the few law schools in the country that offer a course in eminent domain, just compensation, and takings)
  • Land Use Controls (an especially hot topic at the moment)

The registration numbers for both courses are good (really good), and two full classrooms of Dirt Law goodness tells us something about this area of law — it’s really interesting, and a good place to make your way in the practice, and law students recognize that.

PXL_20240819_121031630.MP
We don’t use $400 casebooks in either class.

Time to jack back into the (takings and land use) Matrix.

6a00d83451707369e20240a476d216200c-800wi
Continue Reading Back To School For Dirt Law @ William & Mary, Season 8

BK2025

That’s right, it’s time to plan on joining us at the 22d edition of the best one-day property law conference, William and Mary Law School‘s Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference.

As we noted, Professor William Fischel will be awarded the 2025 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize at the annual Wren Building candlelight ceremony in Williamsburg on October 23, with the following day being devoted to a celebration of his work and career, and discussions of the hot topics in property rights law.

The Conference is expressly designed to get legal academics and the nation’s best dirt law practitioners in the same room, discussion how legal scholarship and law practice work hand-in-hand to shape the law. 

More details:  

The Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize is presented annually to a scholar, practitioner, or jurist whose work affirms the fundamental importance of property rights. It is named in honor of the late Toby Prince…

Continue Reading Registration Open: 22d Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, Oct. 23-24, 2025, Williamsburg

PXL_20250624_180653444.MP

The room where it happened.

We’re not going to say much about the California Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, No. C093682 (July 29, 2025), which is back in the California court system after remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is one of ours.  

Here’s the bottom line:

Upon further analysis as directed by the Supreme Court, we now conclude that the challenged permit condition (TIM fee) does not constitute an unlawful monetary exaction under the Nollan/Dolan test. The legislatively formulated generally applicable impact fee is not an unconstitutional condition imposed on land use in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause. Accordingly, we again affirm the judgment.

Slip op. at 5.

We don’t necessarily agree 100% with our colleague Ben Rubin’s assessment, but do urge you to read his piece, “California Court of Appeal Confirms Legislatively Enacted …

Continue Reading Sheetz On Remand: “The legislatively formulated generally applicable impact fee is not an unconstitutional condition imposed on land use in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.”

Charlottesvillezoning

This interesting — and kind of funny — story has been circulating: “Judge’s ruling means Charlottesville has no zoning laws whatsoever right now.” 

What happened? Is the counter-Euclid revolution underway? Did the judge rediscover Nectow? Did Charlottesville voters decide to go Full Houston? 

No, nothing quite as dramatic. The story notes that the city’s attempt to adopt a new zoning code was held invalid. But, the story notes, the former zoning ordinance was repealed so that the new one could be adopted. With the former code ineffective and the new code invalidated … just like that, no zoning!

We haven’t checked, but we would not be surprised if the most popular search on WEXIS right now in the Blue Ridge is “Virginia /s vested /s rights or ‘estoppel.'”

In the meantime, the city has stopped processing new development applications, while claiming this is all…

Continue Reading Houston Says ‘Welcome!’ – What Happens When Another City Has No Zoning?

Euclidsymposium

With the 100th anniversary of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. nearly upon us in 2026, we’ve put together a series of events designed to reexamine the case that set the stage for a century’s-worth of intense land use regulations and restrictions.

Are Euclid‘s assumptions and conclusions still valid? If the original separation-of-uses and nuisance-prevention rationale of zoning made sense, does that rationale apply when “zoning” has become the shorthand for extremely granular regulation of property’s uses? What of the role of judicial review and a return to Nectowian review? 

Our Euclid series begins with a call for papers, and a follow-up conference at which these articles will be presented and discussed. For more, see the call for papers: “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Euclidean Zoning for the Century Ahead.” The link also has a few suggestions about…

Continue Reading Call For Papers: “Euclid Turns 100: Rethinking an Antiquated Case and Reimagining Zoning for the Century Ahead”

JLEPcover

Last year, we attended a conference devoted to the future of regulatory takings, hosted by the Antonin Scalia School of Law (George Mason U), and Pacific Legal Foundation.

The publisher, the Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy has released the articles and essays from that conference, and made them available here. 

Here’s the list of articles:

  • Michael M. Berger, Juries for Takings Liability: Treating Litigants Alike
  • Ethan W. Blevins, Cyber Takings: A Preliminary Study of Regulating Takings of Virtual Spaces
  • Eric R. Claeys, Takings and Choice of Law After Tyler v. Hennepin County
  • Emily Cruikshank Bayonne and Wesley M. Davenport, Counting Costs: the Institutional Effects of Regulatory Takings
  • Emily Hamilton and Charles Gardner, Legislative Responses to the Regulatory Takings Conundrum
  • Brian T. Hodges and Deborah J. La Fetra, Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Legislatures Must Comply With the Takings Clause
  • Donald J. Kochan, Involuntary Regulatory Servitudes:

…
Continue Reading New Property Rights Symposium Published – “Too Far: Imagining the Future of Regulatory Takings”