Stone v. City of Wilton

Supreme Court of Iowa · Property

PropertyZoningRezoningTakingsVested Rightszoningrezoningpolice power

Facts

Plaintiffs bought about six acres in Wilton intending to build a federally subsidized low-income multi-family housing project, and most of the tract was then zoned R-2 multi-family residential. After they spent money on architectural and engineering work and obtained an FHA loan commitment, the planning and zoning commission recommended rezoning the northern part of the city, including plaintiffs' land, to single-family residential based on density, traffic, and utility concerns. The city denied plaintiffs' building permit application while rezoning was pending and then adopted an ordinance rezoning the land from R-2 to R-1. Plaintiffs challenged the ordinance as invalid, claimed it effected a taking, and sought damages including lost profits.

Issue

Whether the city's rezoning ordinance was invalid or unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs' property, including whether plaintiffs had acquired vested rights in the prior zoning so that the rezoning amounted to a compensable taking. Also, whether plaintiffs could pursue a claim for lost profits based on the rezoning.

Rule

A zoning enactment adopted under the police power is valid if it is reasonable, enacted to promote the public welfare, and not arbitrary or unreasonable; when reasonableness is at least fairly debatable, courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the legislative body. To establish vested rights in an existing zoning classification, the owner must show substantial accomplishments in conformity with the project before rezoning, judged case by case based on the type of project, location, ultimate cost, and principally the amount accomplished under conformity. Absent such vested rights, a rezoning that merely deprives land of its most beneficial use does not constitute a taking.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel bought eight vacant acres on the edge of Cedar Falls, Iowa, hoping to build townhouse clusters. Before any site work began, the city council rezoned the surrounding corridor, including Nina's land, from medium-density residential to single-family residential after hearings citing increased traffic, pedestrian safety near an elementary school, and insufficient sewer capacity for concentrated development.

If Nina challenges the rezoning as unconstitutional because the evidence about traffic and utilities was disputed, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that zoning enacted under the police power is valid if reasonable, related to public welfare, and not arbitrary or unreasonable. When the question of reasonableness is at least fairly debatable, courts do not substitute their judgment for that of the legislative body. Traffic, pedestrian flow, density, and utility capacity are recognized general-welfare reasons supporting rezoning. (Derived from Stone v. City of Wilton (n.d.).)