ALUMNI CONTROL BD., ALPHA PSI CHAP. v. City of Lincoln
137 N.W.2d 800, 179 Neb. 194, 1965 Neb. LEXIS 424 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner's desire to expand a permitted use for economic reasons does not, by itself, constitute a "practical difficulty" sufficient to require a zoning authority to grant an area variance.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a fraternity, owns a corner lot in a commercial district in Lincoln where fraternities are a permitted use.
- The fraternity, which currently houses 21 men, sought to build a new four-story building on its property to accommodate 48 men.
- The proposed building's dimensions exceeded the maximum size permitted by the Lincoln zoning code, requiring variances for front, rear, and side yard setbacks.
- The zoning code also required off-street parking to be located within 1,200 feet of the property.
- The plaintiff's proposed off-street parking facility was located 1,280 feet from the property, necessitating an additional variance.
- It was possible to construct a new fraternity house on the lot that complied with both the city zoning code and the University of Nebraska housing code, but it would only accommodate 36 men.
- The plaintiff contended that constructing a fraternity house for fewer than 48 men was not economically desirable or feasible.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff applied to the Lincoln building inspector for a building permit requiring several variances.
- The building inspector denied the application.
- The plaintiff appealed the denial to the Lincoln board of zoning appeals, which affirmed the denial.
- The plaintiff then appealed to the Lincoln city council, which also denied the application.
- The plaintiff sought review in the district court (trial court), which affirmed the city's decision.
- The plaintiff then appealed the district court's judgment to this court (the state's highest appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a property owner's desire to expand a permitted use beyond zoning code area restrictions for purely economic reasons constitute a "practical difficulty" that requires a municipality to grant a zoning variance?
Opinions:
Majority - McCown, J.
No. A property owner's desire to expand a permitted use for economic advantage does not establish the 'practical difficulty' necessary to compel the granting of an area variance. The court reasoned that the challenges cited by the plaintiff—namely economic feasibility and compliance with the University's separate housing code—were not peculiar or unique to the specific parcel of land, as required by the Lincoln municipal code for a variance. The evidence showed that other fraternities faced similar economic pressures and that the plaintiff could still build a larger, compliant fraternity house on the property capable of housing 36 men, a significant increase from its current capacity. The court held that a landowner's wish for a more profitable or larger-scale operation does not override zoning restrictions designed for public welfare. Furthermore, the court found the refusal to grant an 80-foot parking distance variance was not unreasonable, as the ordinance already allowed a generous distance and the plaintiff failed to show any reason why it could not comply.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legal standard for obtaining an area variance based on "practical difficulty," distinguishing it from the "unnecessary hardship" standard often used for use variances. The court establishes that mere economic inconvenience or the desire for a more profitable use of property is insufficient to justify a variance. The difficulty must stem from unique circumstances inherent to the land itself, not from the owner's personal or business objectives. This ruling strengthens the authority of municipal zoning boards to enforce regulations and prevents the variance process from becoming a loophole for developers seeking to maximize profits at the expense of a community's zoning plan.
