Set-Back Lines in Zoning Ordinances Unconstitutional Under Pennsylvania Law

Set-Back Lines in Zoning Ordinances Unconstitutional Under Pennsylvania Law

Introduction

The case White's Appeal. (287 Pa. 259) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1926 addresses the constitutionality of municipal zoning ordinances, specifically focusing on set-back lines imposed on residential properties. The appellant, represented by the City Solicitor Thomas M. Benner, challenged the ordinance under the claim that it violated the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The key issue revolved around whether the zoning regulations served a legitimate public purpose or constituted an arbitrary interference with property rights.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Superior Court's decision, which had previously invalidated part of the city of Pittsburgh's zoning ordinance. The challenged ordinance stipulated that if 80% of the buildings on one side of a street were set back from the street line by a certain distance, no subsequent buildings could be erected closer to the street line than established by the majority. The Court held that this provision lacked a reasonable relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and was, therefore, an unconstitutional exercise of the police power.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several precedents to support its decision:

These cases collectively highlight the Court's stance on the limits of police power, emphasizing that regulations must directly relate to substantial public interests and not be based on arbitrary or aesthetic considerations.

Legal Reasoning

The Court differentiated between the police power and eminent domain, emphasizing that the former regulates property use for public welfare without compensation, whereas the latter involves the taking of property with compensation. The primary legal reasoning hinged on whether the zoning ordinance served a recognized public purpose and maintained a reasonable relationship to that purpose.

The Court scrutinized the specific provision of the ordinance imposing set-back lines, finding that it was arbitrary and lacked a clear connection to enhancing public health, safety, or morals. The regulation appeared to be driven by aesthetic preferences rather than substantive public needs, leading to discriminatory application and potential confiscatory effects on property owners.

Impact

This Judgment set a significant precedent in Pennsylvania law by delineating the boundaries of municipal zoning authority. It underscored the necessity for zoning ordinances to be grounded in legitimate public interests and to apply uniformly without arbitrary discrimination. Future cases involving zoning laws would reference this decision to assess the constitutionality of similar regulations, ensuring that they align with established public welfare objectives rather than subjective or aesthetic preferences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Police Power

Police power refers to the authority of government entities to regulate behavior and enforce order within their jurisdiction to promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It is distinct from other governmental powers like taxation and eminent domain.

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain allows the government to take private property for public use, provided that just compensation is given to the property owner. Unlike police power, eminent domain involves a transfer of ownership rather than regulation of use.

Set-Back Line

A set-back line is a regulation that requires buildings to be set back a certain distance from a street or property line. These lines are intended to control the density and spatial arrangement of buildings within a municipality.

14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law and due process, which prevents states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without appropriate legal procedures.

Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision in White's Appeal (287 Pa. 259) serves as a critical evaluation of municipal zoning powers, reinforcing that such regulations must be inherently tied to genuine public welfare objectives. By invalidating the set-back line provision for lacking a rational relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the Court emphasized the importance of non-arbitrary, uniformly applied zoning laws. This Judgment ensures that property regulations cannot extend to mere aesthetic preferences, safeguarding individual property rights against unnecessary governmental interference.

Case Details

Year: 1926
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Judge(s)

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE KEPHART, June 26, 1926:

Attorney(S)

Thomas M. Benner, City Solicitor, for appellant. — The public policy of a state is determined by its constitution, its statutes, and its court decisions. Unquestionably, the public policy of Pennsylvania as exhibited by our statutes is that urban property within the State shall be regulated. Historically speaking, the first zoning law was passed in 1908 by the State of Massachusetts, dividing the City of Boston into two height districts: Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364. The ordinance was proper: Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394; Cusack v. Chicago, 242 U.S. 526; Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104; Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113. Ordinances such as the one here under consideration have met with the approval of the courts of New York, Massachusetts and Kansas: Lincoln Trust Co. v. Williams, 229 N.Y. 317; Re Opinion of Justices, 234 Mass. 597; Ware v. City of Wichita (Kan.), 214 P. 99. It is primarily for the legislature to consider and decide on the fact of a danger, then meet it by a proper remedy: Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U.S. 495; Mahon v. Coal Co., 274 Pa. 489; American Reduction Co.'s Permit, 72 P. L. J. 321; Hyett v. Pittsburgh, 73 P. L. J. Frank C. McGirr, for appellees. — Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be sustained as a lawful exercise of police power in the circumstances disclosed in the record: Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137; Bryan v. Chester, 212 Pa. 259. It is the doctrine of all the cases, in all the states (except Wisconsin), as well as the United States Supreme Court, that the police power cannot be exercised for esthetic purposes only. The zoning acts provide that ordinances to be valid must be in the interests of public health, public safety, and general welfare: Mellon v. Pittsburgh, 21 P. L. J. 155; Perkins v. Phila., 156 Pa. 554; Moll v. Morrow, 253 Pa. 442; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60; Mahon v. Coal Co., 274 Pa. 489; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1. Edward M. Bassett, amicus curiæ, representing the Pennsylvania Association of City Planning Commissioners, filed a printed brief, adding, to the city solicitor's cases, the following: Wolfsohn v. Burden, 241 N.Y. 288; People v. N. Y. City Board of Appeals, 234 N.Y. 484; Ex Parte Hadacheck, 165 Cal. 416, 239 U.S. 394; Brett v. Brookline Bldg. Comrs., 250 Mass. 73.

Comments