Layne v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
460 A.2d 1088, 501 Pa. 224, 1983 Pa. LEXIS 532 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance that distinguishes between permitted and non-permitted uses based on a characteristic, such as the provision of meals, does not violate the equal protection clause if the classification has a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. A legislative desire to exclude commercial activities from residential zones is a rational basis for such a distinction.
Facts:
- An individual (appellee Layne) leased property in Pittsburgh, which was located in an area zoned as an R-4 residential district.
- The Pittsburgh Code defines a 'rooming house' as a building providing lodging without meals.
- The Pittsburgh Code defines a 'boarding house' as a building providing both lodging and meals.
- Under the city's zoning ordinance (§ 937.02), rooming houses are a permitted use in R-4 residential districts.
- The same ordinance prohibits boarding houses in R-4 residential districts.
- Layne sought permission to operate a boarding house, which would include serving meals to residents, on her leased property.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellee (Layne) was denied a request to operate a boarding house by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Pittsburgh.
- Layne appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which is a trial court.
- The Court of Common Pleas affirmed the Zoning Board's decision.
- Layne (as appellant) appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the lower court, holding that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The Zoning Board of Adjustment (as appellant) appealed the Commonwealth Court's decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
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 permits rooming houses (lodging only) but prohibits boarding houses (lodging and meals) in the same residential district violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McDermott
No. The zoning ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause because the distinction between boarding houses and rooming houses is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Zoning classifications are presumed valid, and the challenger bears the heavy burden of proving otherwise. The city's legislative body intended to exclude commercial institutions from residential districts. The provision of meals is a commercial, 'restaurant type use' that implicates public health codes, making it distinct from simply providing lodging. Therefore, treating boarding houses differently from rooming houses bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, and general welfare, and courts should not interfere with this legislative judgment.
Dissenting - Justice Nix
Yes. The ordinance violates the equal protection clause because the exclusion of boarding homes from R-4 districts lacks a reasonable basis. The distinction based on meal service has 'no real difference relevant to zoning purposes.' Rooming houses in large cities can be just as, if not more, transient and commercial in nature than boarding houses, which often have a more stable, 'family-type atmosphere.' The court must closely scrutinize such regulations when an equal protection challenge is raised to ensure they are not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Dissenting - Justice Flaherty
Yes. The ordinance violates the equal protection clause because there is no meaningful distinction between rooming and boarding houses relevant to legitimate zoning goals. A rooming house is no less 'commercial' or 'inn-like' than a boarding house, and the city failed to provide an evidentiary basis for the differential treatment. The distinction based on the availability of meal service is arbitrary and does not advance a legitimate zoning purpose, therefore violating equal protection.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of judicial deference afforded to legislative judgments in the context of zoning. It establishes that even fine-grained distinctions between similar land uses can survive an equal protection challenge, so long as the government can articulate a rational connection to a legitimate public purpose, such as separating commercial from residential activities. The ruling solidifies the heavy burden placed on challengers to overcome the strong presumption of a zoning ordinance's constitutionality. This precedent makes it more difficult to strike down zoning laws on equal protection grounds, encouraging courts to uphold legislative classifications unless they are clearly arbitrary and without any conceivable rational basis.
