Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325 (1927)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 274 U.S. 316, click here.

Zahn v. Board of Public Works


No.196
Argued March 7, 1927
Decided May 16, 1927
274 U.S. 325

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

1. A zoning ordinance dividing the City of Los Angeles into five building zones and prescribing the kinds of buildings that may be erected in each zone held constitutional in its general scope (Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365), and not violative of due process or equal protection as applied to this case. P. 327.

2. The plaintiff’s lot was in a zone limited by the ordinance to buildings for residences, churches, private clubs, educational purpose, etc., and excluding buildings for private business other than physicians’ offices. The value of the lot would be much enhanced if it could be used for business purposes, for which it was favorably situated. Other property in the zone was largely restricted by covenant to residential uses. The entire neighborhood at the time of the ordinance was largely unimproved, but in course of rapid development. The conclusion of the city council, on these and other facts, that the public welfare would be promoted by establishing the zone cannot be adjudged clearly arbitrary or unreasonable, and this Court cannot in such circumstance substitute its judgment for theirs. P. 328.

195 Cal. 497 affirmed.

Error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of California, on an original application for a writ of mandate commanding the Board of Public Works of the City of Los Angeles to issue to the petitioners a permit for the construction of a business building, suitable for occupation by stores, upon property of the petitioners in that city. An alternative writ was issued, returnable in the district court of appeal, which found in favor of the petitioners, holding the city zoning ordinances unreasonable and discriminatory. This was reversed, and the ordinances upheld, by the subsequent judgment of the supreme court, here under review.