City of Los Angeles v. Gage
127 Cal. App. 2d 442, 274 P.2d 34 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance that requires the discontinuance of a pre-existing, lawful, nonconforming use within a prescribed reasonable period of time is a constitutional exercise of the police power and does not constitute a taking of property without due process of law.
Facts:
- In 1930, Gage acquired two adjoining lots in Los Angeles and established a wholesale and retail plumbing supply business.
- Gage used a portion of a two-family residential building on one lot for an office and the other lot for open storage of plumbing supplies and materials.
- At the time Gage began his business, and through subsequent zoning changes, this commercial use was legally permitted on the property.
- In 1946, the City of Los Angeles passed Ordinance 90,500, which rezoned the area to "R-4" (Multiple Dwelling Zone), where Gage's business was no longer a permitted use.
- The ordinance stipulated that such nonconforming commercial uses must be discontinued within five years from June 1, 1946.
- Gage's business produced substantial gross revenue, and relocating would involve costs for a new site, moving supplies, and advertising a new location.
- The operation of Gage's business, with its open storage yard and trucking, caused more noise and disturbance than is typical for a residential district.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Los Angeles filed a suit for an injunction against Gage in the superior court (trial court) to compel him to discontinue his nonconforming business use.
- The trial court found the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to Gage and entered a judgment in his favor, allowing the business to continue.
- The City of Los Angeles, as the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate 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 zoning ordinance that requires the discontinuance of a lawful, pre-existing nonconforming commercial use within a prescribed reasonable period (five years) constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without due process of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Vallée, J.
No. A zoning ordinance requiring the termination of an existing nonconforming use within a reasonable period of time is a legitimate exercise of the police power, not an unconstitutional taking. The constitutionality of such a provision depends on a balancing of the public gain against the private loss. The distinction between prohibiting future uses and eliminating existing uses over a reasonable period is one of degree. Here, the five-year amortization period is a reasonable means of reconciling the conflicting interests, allowing the owner to offset losses by providing time to make new plans and enjoying a monopolistic position during the phase-out period. The ordinance does not destroy Gage's business but merely restricts its location, and the costs of moving are not so substantial as to make the ordinance arbitrary or unreasonable when weighed against the public benefit of eliminating nonconforming uses to achieve a comprehensive zoning plan.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the constitutionality of the "amortization" method for eliminating nonconforming uses in California. Prior to this, property owners often claimed a vested right to continue such uses indefinitely. This decision provides municipalities with a powerful legal tool to achieve comprehensive zoning goals by phasing out uses that conflict with a district's character over a reasonable period, thereby promoting community welfare and orderly development. The court's balancing approach requires a case-by-case analysis of reasonableness, but it firmly rejects the idea that a nonconforming use is a perpetual right, shifting the legal landscape in favor of proactive urban planning.
Unlock the full brief for City of Los Angeles v. Gage