Lexplug logoLexplug

Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, Ohio

District Court
297 F. 307 (1924)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A comprehensive zoning ordinance that severely restricts the use of private property and substantially diminishes its value, without a clear and substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or order, constitutes a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Facts:

  • Ambler Realty Co. owned a 68-acre tract of unimproved land in the Village of Euclid, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland.
  • The property was situated between Euclid Avenue, a major commercial thoroughfare, on its southern border and the Nickel Plate Railway on its northern border.
  • The land's location and the eastward industrial expansion from Cleveland made its normal and reasonably expected use for general trade, commercial, and industrial purposes.
  • The Village of Euclid enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance that divided Ambler's single parcel into three distinct use-zones.
  • The zone fronting Euclid Avenue was restricted to single-family dwellings, the next section to two-family dwellings, a third to apartments, and only the northernmost 1,200 feet could be used for industrial purposes.
  • This zoning scheme prohibited retail stores, commercial establishments, and industrial operations on the majority of Ambler's land.
  • As a direct result of these use restrictions, the present market value of Ambler's property was substantially impaired and depreciated by several hundred thousand dollars.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ambler Realty Co. filed suit against the Village of Euclid in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
  • The plaintiff sought to have Village Ordinance No. 2812 declared null and void and to enjoin its enforcement.
  • After the parties joined issue, evidence was submitted to the court in the form of depositions for a final decision on the merits.

Locked

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 municipal zoning ordinance that divides a landowner's property into separate use-districts (residential, apartment, and industrial), thereby preventing its natural development for more valuable commercial and industrial purposes and substantially reducing its market value, violate the landowner's constitutional right to property under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Westenhaver, District Judge

Yes, the zoning ordinance violates the landowner's constitutional rights. The right to property is not merely the title and possession but includes the essential attributes of use and disposal, upon which its value depends. By severely restricting the land's use for its most valuable and natural purposes—trade and industry—the ordinance effectively takes Ambler's property without just compensation under the guise of police power. The ordinance's true purposes, such as regulating the mode of living, segregating the population by income, and pursuing aesthetic goals, do not bear a real and substantial relation to public health, safety, or morals. Therefore, it is an arbitrary and unreasonable invasion of private property rights, exceeding the constitutional limits of police power and violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.



Analysis:

This district court decision represents the traditional, property-centric view of land use regulation that was prevalent before the rise of modern zoning. It holds that a significant diminution in property value caused by regulation is a constitutional 'taking' requiring compensation. The court's reasoning, which treats comprehensive zoning as an illegitimate intrusion on property rights for socio-economic and aesthetic goals, is notable because it was directly challenged and ultimately reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This opinion is now primarily studied to understand the powerful legal arguments against comprehensive zoning that the Supreme Court had to overcome to establish the constitutional foundation for municipal zoning authority in the United States.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, Ohio (1924) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, Ohio