City of Aurora v. Burns
319 Ill. 84, 149 N.E. 784 (1925)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A comprehensive municipal zoning ordinance that divides a city into districts and restricts the use of property within those districts is a valid exercise of the state's police power, provided the regulation is not arbitrary and bears a rational relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
Facts:
- On May 9, 1923, the City of Aurora, after more than seven months of study with expert advice, passed a comprehensive building zone ordinance.
- The ordinance divided the city into eight districts, including a 'B' residential district, and regulated the uses permitted in each.
- Robert Burns and Albert W. DeLatour conducted several 'Piggly Wiggly' grocery stores in Aurora.
- Burns and DeLatour began constructing a new building at the corner of Chestnut and Walnut streets, which was intended to be used as a grocery store.
- The site of the new building was located within the area designated by the ordinance as a 'B' residential district, where grocery stores were a prohibited use.
- The district was characteristically a residential neighborhood, predominated by one or two-family dwellings.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Aurora filed a bill for an injunction against Robert Burns and Albert W. DeLatour in the city court of Aurora (a trial court).
- The city sought to restrain the construction and use of a building as a grocery store in a residential zone.
- Burns and DeLatour answered, asserting that the zoning ordinance and the state enabling act were unconstitutional.
- The trial court found in favor of the City of Aurora and issued a decree enjoining Burns and DeLatour from violating the ordinance.
- Burns and DeLatour (as appellants) appealed the decree directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois (the state's highest court), based on the constitutional questions and a trial court certification that the public interest required it.
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 city into various districts and prohibits the construction of a grocery store in a designated residential zone constitute a valid exercise of the police power?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice DeYoung
Yes. A municipal zoning ordinance that divides a city into districts and prohibits a commercial use like a grocery store in a residential zone is a valid exercise of the police power. The police power extends beyond public health and safety to promote the general welfare of the community. The segregation of commercial and residential uses bears a rational relation to the general welfare by preventing population congestion, securing quiet residential districts, expediting transportation, and facilitating the suppression of disorder and the extinguishment of fires. The ordinance is not an arbitrary or unreasonable interference with private property rights, but part of a comprehensive, city-wide plan created after careful study. Allowing pre-existing, non-conforming uses to continue is a reasonable classification to avoid the injustice of retroactive application and does not constitute unlawful discrimination. The fact that an owner could use their property more profitably for a prohibited use is inconsequential when weighed against the broader public benefit.
Dissenting - Farmer and Duncan, JJ.
The opinion notes that Justices Farmer and Duncan dissented, but provides no reasoning for their dissent.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in the law of land use, affirming the constitutionality of comprehensive zoning. It establishes that the concept of 'general welfare' under the police power is broad enough to justify regulations that separate incompatible land uses, even if the prohibited use is not a nuisance per se. The ruling moved land use regulation beyond simple nuisance abatement and validated proactive, city-wide planning to shape community development. This decision provided strong legal precedent for municipalities across the country to enact and enforce zoning ordinances that create distinct residential, commercial, and industrial districts.
