Southern Burlington County, NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel
336 A.2d 713 (N.J.), 423 U.S. 808 (1975) (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A developing municipality, through its land use regulations, must presumptively make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing. It cannot foreclose the opportunity for low and moderate-income housing and must affirmatively afford that opportunity, at least to the extent of the municipality's fair share of the present and prospective regional need.
Facts:
- The Township of Mount Laurel was a rapidly developing suburban community in Burlington County, New Jersey.
- Mount Laurel's zoning ordinance permitted only single-family detached dwellings and prohibited multi-family housing (apartments), townhouses, and mobile homes.
- The ordinance imposed restrictive requirements, including minimum lot sizes of at least 9,375 square feet, minimum lot frontages, and minimum dwelling floor areas of 1,100 square feet, which inflated housing costs.
- The township zoned an excessive amount of land (29.2% of its area) for industrial use, far more than reasonably projected, which removed land from potential residential development.
- Mount Laurel approved Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) that included apartments, but these were designed exclusively for middle and upper-income residents and included restrictions on the number of bedrooms and school-age children.
- Township officials openly admitted that the zoning scheme was intended to maintain a low property tax rate by attracting high-value commercial ratables and excluding families with school-age children who would increase education costs.
- In 1968, a non-profit association sought to build subsidized housing for the township's own poor residents, but the Township Committee thwarted the project by requiring compliance with the restrictive single-family zoning regulations.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, including the NAACP and low-income individuals, sued the Township of Mount Laurel in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division (trial court), challenging its zoning ordinance.
- The trial court found the ordinance unlawfully exclusionary and declared it totally invalid.
- The trial court ordered the township to conduct studies of housing needs and submit an affirmative plan to the court for approval.
- The Township of Mount Laurel, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division.
- The plaintiffs, as cross-appellants, also appealed, arguing the ordered plan should consider regional housing needs, not just those connected to the township.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification on its own motion before the case was argued in the Appellate Division.
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 developing municipality's zoning ordinance that, for fiscal reasons, makes it physically and economically impossible to provide low and moderate-income housing, violate the general welfare requirement of the state constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hall
Yes. A developing municipality's zoning ordinance violates the state constitution's general welfare provision when it fails to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share of the region's present and prospective needs for low and moderate-income housing. The concept of 'general welfare' in the context of zoning is regional, not parochial; a municipality cannot disregard the welfare of the state's citizens beyond its borders. Shelter is a basic human need, and providing adequate housing for all categories of people is an essential component of the general welfare. A municipality’s desire to maintain a low tax rate by excluding less affluent families is not a valid exercise of the zoning power. When a plaintiff shows that a municipality's zoning scheme is exclusionary, the burden shifts to the municipality to demonstrate a valid justification, which Mount Laurel failed to do.
Concurring - Justice Mountain
Yes. The court's conclusion is correct, but it should be based on an interpretation of the term 'general welfare' in the state's zoning enabling statute rather than on state constitutional grounds. Resting the decision on statutory interpretation avoids the need to address the more significant constitutional question.
Concurring - Justice Pashman
Yes. The majority's holding is correct, but the court should go further by establishing broad guidelines for all municipalities—not just developing ones—and by outlining a more active judicial role in enforcing these affirmative obligations. Exclusionary zoning is a widespread problem motivated by fiscal concerns and social prejudices that requires forceful judicial intervention. Courts should follow a four-step process to enforce these duties: identify the region, determine the regional need, allocate that need among municipalities, and shape a comprehensive remedy.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'Mount Laurel Doctrine,' fundamentally altering New Jersey zoning law and influencing land use jurisprudence nationwide. It redefined the 'general welfare' concept in zoning from a local to a regional standard, imposing an affirmative obligation on developing municipalities to provide a 'fair share' of regional low and moderate-income housing. The decision invalidated 'fiscal zoning'—the practice of using land use controls to protect a municipality's tax base—as a legitimate justification for exclusionary practices. This ruling created a new cause of action against exclusionary zoning and set the stage for decades of subsequent litigation and legislative action to implement and enforce its 'fair share' mandate.
Unlock the full brief for Southern Burlington County, NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel