Elysian Heights Residents Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles
1986 Cal. App. LEXIS 1688, 182 Cal.App.3d 21, 227 Cal. Rptr. 226 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's State Planning and Zoning Law, a building permit is valid if it complies with the applicable zoning ordinance, even if that ordinance is inconsistent with the city's general plan. The statute requiring consistency between zoning and the general plan does not mandate that individual building permits also be consistent with the general plan.
Facts:
- In March 1984, Morton Park Associates (Morton) identified a property for development after confirming the local zoning ordinances allowed for a 46-unit apartment building.
- In April 1984, Morton opened escrow to purchase the land for $450,000 and began preparing architectural plans and securing over $1.8 million in loans.
- While the proposed 45-unit project complied with the existing zoning, it was inconsistent with the City of Los Angeles's general plan for the area, which specified a lower density allowing for only about 12 units.
- In August 1984, escrow closed, and Morton obtained grading and demolition permits.
- After receiving a building permit in October 1984, Morton demolished three existing structures on the property, began grading, poured concrete footings for the foundation, and entered into contracts with subcontractors.
- Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc., a group of local residents, was aware of the project and had been monitoring its progress.
Procedural Posture:
- Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc. appealed the issuance of Morton's building permit to the City of Los Angeles's board of zoning administrators.
- The zoning administrator ruled that the department of building and safety did not err or abuse its discretion in issuing the permit.
- Appellants then appealed that decision to the City’s board of zoning appeals.
- The board of zoning appeals failed to act, which resulted in the zoning administrator's ruling becoming final on April 16, 1985.
- The next day, Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc. (appellants) filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court (trial court) seeking to revoke the permit.
- The superior court denied the petition, concluding it would be inequitable to terminate the project.
- Elysian Heights Residents Association, Inc. (appellants) appealed the superior court's judgment to the Court of Appeal (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 California Government Code section 65860, which requires city zoning ordinances to be consistent with the city's general plan, also require that individual building permits be consistent with the general plan to be valid?
Opinions:
Majority - Compton, Acting P. J.
No. A building permit is not invalid merely because the project, while conforming to the local zoning ordinance, is inconsistent with the city's general plan. The plain language of Government Code section 65860 requires that zoning ordinances be consistent with the general plan, but it imposes no such consistency requirement on the issuance of individual building permits. The Legislature explicitly required permit-plan consistency in other contexts, such as for open-space plans, and its omission here indicates a deliberate choice. The statute provides cities with a 'reasonable time' to bring zoning into conformity, implying that development consistent with existing zoning may proceed in the interim. Mandating immediate permit-plan consistency would halt construction on hundreds of thousands of parcels in Los Angeles, causing severe economic hardship, a result the Legislature did not intend.
Dissenting - Gates, J.
Yes. A building permit that is inconsistent with the general plan is invalid because it is based on a zoning ordinance that is itself legally non-compliant with state law. The legislative mandate for zoning-plan consistency is rendered meaningless if cities can continue issuing permits for developments that violate the plan. The general plan is the 'constitution for all future developments,' and the validity of any permit derives from compliance with this hierarchy; if the zoning is inconsistent with the plan, any permit based on that zoning is invalid. The developer, Morton, knew the project violated the general plan and took a calculated risk, so the equities do not favor protecting its investment over the integrity of the neighborhood and the mandate of state law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the hierarchy of land use controls in California, establishing that a building permit's validity is measured against the current zoning ordinance, not the overarching general plan, unless a statute explicitly requires otherwise. It provides certainty for developers relying on facially valid zoning ordinances during the often lengthy period when a municipality is updating its zoning to conform to its general plan. The ruling prioritizes economic stability and gradual implementation over the immediate, strict enforcement of general plan consistency for individual projects, effectively weakening the general plan's direct control over development until zoning is formally amended.
