Stone v. City of Wilton
331 N.W.2d 398 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner does not acquire a vested right in a particular zoning classification by purchasing property and incurring preliminary, non-physical expenses such as architectural and engineering fees. To establish a vested right sufficient to prevent a rezoning from constituting a taking, the landowner must have made substantial expenditures or undertaken significant construction on the property itself.
Facts:
- In June 1979, Alex and Martha Stone purchased approximately six acres of undeveloped land in Wilton, Iowa.
- The Stones intended to develop a low-income, federally subsidized multi-family housing project on the land.
- At the time of purchase, the majority of the property was zoned R-2, which permitted multi-family residences.
- After the purchase, the Stones spent approximately $7,900 on architectural and engineering services to prepare preliminary plans and plats for the project.
- The Stones also secured a loan commitment from the Farmers' Home Administration (FHA) to finance construction.
- In March 1980, the city's planning and zoning commission recommended rezoning the area, including the Stones' property, to single-family residential (R-1), citing inadequate public services for high-density development.
- No construction, excavation, or placement of materials had occurred on the Stones' property before the rezoning process began.
- In June 1980, the Wilton City Council enacted an ordinance officially rezoning the Stones' property from R-2 to R-1.
Procedural Posture:
- In May 1980, the Stones' application for a building permit to construct multi-family dwellings was denied by the city due to the pending rezoning recommendation.
- The Stones (plaintiffs) filed a petition in trial court against the City of Wilton (defendant), seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate the rezoning, an injunction to prohibit its passage, and damages.
- The trial court denied the Stones' request for a temporary injunction.
- The case proceeded to a bench trial, which was tried in equity.
- The trial court dismissed the Stones' petition, ruling in favor of the City of Wilton.
- The Stones (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 ordinance that rezones a property from multi-family to single-family residential constitute an unconstitutional taking when the landowner has purchased the property and incurred preliminary expenses in reliance on the prior zoning, but has not commenced any physical construction?
Opinions:
Majority - McGiverin, Justice.
No, the rezoning ordinance does not constitute an unconstitutional taking. A landowner's right to develop property under a specific zoning classification does not vest merely upon the purchase of land and the expenditure of preliminary costs. The Stones' expenses for architectural plans and engineering services were preparatory and did not rise to the level of substantial reliance required to create a vested right. Citing the standard from Board of Supervisors of Scott County v. Paaske, the court emphasized that the principal factor is the amount of work 'accomplished under conformity' with the prior zoning. Unlike cases where excavation had begun or foundations were laid, the Stones had undertaken no physical construction on the site. The city's decision to rezone was a valid exercise of its police power, reasonably related to the general welfare concerns of traffic, density, and utility capacity. A diminution in property value, even a substantial one, does not constitute a taking if the regulation is a reasonable exercise of police power and does not deprive the owner of all reasonable use of the land.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high threshold in Iowa for establishing a vested right against subsequent zoning changes. It clarifies that 'soft costs,' such as planning and design fees, are generally insufficient to create a vested right, distinguishing them from 'hard costs' associated with actual construction. The ruling reinforces the broad discretion of municipalities to amend zoning ordinances under their police power to address changing community needs, even when it thwarts a landowner's most profitable intended use. Future landowners challenging a rezoning must demonstrate significant, tangible progress and substantial investment in physical construction on the site itself to have a viable takings claim.
