La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook
1957 Ill. LEXIS 322, 145 N.E.2d 65, 12 Ill. 2d 40 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to a specific property if it is arbitrary and unreasonable, bearing no substantial relation to public health, safety, or general welfare. To determine this, courts weigh several factors, including the character of the surrounding area, the reduction in property value, and the balance of public gain versus private hardship.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, La Salle National Bank of Chicago, as trustee, owns a vacant, low-lying, triangular-shaped parcel of land in an unincorporated area of Cook County.
- The property is located at the intersection of two heavily traveled four-lane arterial highways, Dempster Road and Rand Road.
- The Cook County zoning ordinance classifies the property as R-4, which restricts its use to single-family residences on lots of at least 10,000 square feet.
- The surrounding neighborhood contains a mix of uses, including factories, a foundry, a tavern, a wholesale greenhouse, and other commercial establishments, with a 40-acre tract to the south zoned for a shopping center.
- The property's value is estimated at $8,000 to $10,000 under the residential zoning, but would be $30,000 to $40,000 if zoned for business use.
- Plaintiff desires to build a gasoline service station on the property.
- The property is physically unsuitable for residential development due to its irregular shape, location on a busy intersection, low elevation, and lack of residential infrastructure like sidewalks.
- The property has remained vacant for the entire period it has been zoned for residential use, despite a substantial building boom in the general area.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, La Salle National Bank, filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County seeking a declaratory judgment.
- The complaint challenged the Cook County zoning ordinance as unconstitutional as applied to its property.
- The trial court, after hearing evidence, entered a declaratory judgment finding the ordinance unconstitutional and void as applied to the subject property.
- Defendant, Cook County, appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
- Plaintiff filed a motion to transfer the appeal to the intermediate appellate court, which the Supreme Court of Illinois considered along with the merits of the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a county zoning ordinance that restricts a specific parcel of land to single-family residential use unconstitutional as applied to that property, where the parcel's character and surrounding area make it unsuitable for residential use and the restriction significantly reduces its value without a substantial relation to public health, safety, or welfare?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bristow
Yes. A zoning ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to a specific property if it imposes a restriction that bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. While an ordinance is presumed valid, that presumption is overcome here by clear and convincing evidence. The court evaluated six factors: existing uses of nearby property, diminution of property value, the extent to which this diminution promotes public welfare, the relative public gain versus private hardship, the property's suitability for the zoned purpose, and the length of time the property has remained vacant. Applying these factors, the evidence shows the property is surrounded by commercial uses, its value is substantially decreased by the restriction, and it is unsuitable for residential use. The hardship to the plaintiff is great while the gain to the public from enforcing the ordinance is minimal. Therefore, the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable, and void as applied to the plaintiff's property.
Dissenting - Justice Daily
The dissent does not answer the issue on the merits, instead arguing the court lacks jurisdiction. The case does not require a 'construction of the constitution' but merely applies established constitutional principles to a specific set of facts. The constitutional interpretations regarding zoning are so well-settled as to be no longer debatable. Absent a certificate from the trial judge stating that the public interest requires a direct appeal, this case involves only a factual determination of reasonableness and should have been transferred to the Appellate Court.
Analysis:
This case is significant for articulating a clear, multi-factor framework for analyzing 'as applied' challenges to zoning ordinances in Illinois, often referred to as the 'La Salle factors.' The decision solidifies the principle that while legislative zoning decisions are given deference, they are not absolute and can be struck down when they impose a severe economic burden on a property owner without a corresponding, substantial public benefit. This balancing test provides a crucial check on municipal police power, empowering courts to protect individual property rights from arbitrary and confiscatory regulation and setting a precedent for how such zoning disputes are adjudicated.
