Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Property

Borough of Neptune City v. Borough of Avon-by-the-Sea

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1972 · Property
294 A.2d 47 (1972)
Updated
Propertytidal landspublic beachesresident nonresident feesmunicipal beach feesequal accessrecreationbathing

Facts

Avon is an oceanfront municipality that owns and maintains a boardwalk and a dry sand beach area between Ocean Avenue and the ordinary high water mark, and that beach area has been dedicated to public beach recreational purposes. The land between mean high and low water marks and the ocean-covered land seaward thereof is owned by the State. Under a 1970 ordinance amendment, Avon limited season badges to residents and taxpayers and their immediate families, set the monthly badge price equal to the seasonal price, and increased daily badge prices, resulting in higher effective charges for non-residents. Plaintiffs, including an adjacent inland municipality and two of its residents, challenged that discrimination.

Issue

May an oceanfront municipality that owns a dedicated public beach charge non-residents higher fees than residents for access to and use of the beach area? More broadly, does the public trust doctrine require equal access to municipally owned dedicated beach property and adjacent ocean waters?

Rule

Under the public trust doctrine, public rights in tidal lands include recreational uses such as bathing, swimming, and other shore activities, not merely navigation and fishing. Therefore, where a municipality owns upland dry sand dedicated to public beach purposes, the beach and ocean waters must be open to all on equal terms and without preference, although the municipality may charge reasonable uniform fees and may regulate beach use for safety.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
The City of Seabright, New Jersey owns a dry sand beach and adjoining promenade, both long dedicated by ordinance to public recreation. To cover operating costs, it sells season passes to city residents for $40 but allows nonresidents to buy only daily passes at $8 each.

If nonresidents challenge the ordinance, what is the strongest argument that the differential pricing is invalid?

Explanation. The majority held that the public trust doctrine extends to recreational uses such as bathing and shore activities. Where a municipality owns upland dry sand dedicated to public beach purposes, the beach and adjacent ocean access must be open to all on equal terms and without preference. Reasonable fees are allowed, but discriminatory resident-preference pricing is not.