Issues in Land Use Law & Zoning

Vested Rights

February 28th, 2014

Editor’s note: In this article, attorney Dan Shapiro provides a brief introduction to some of the “wrinkles” when it comes to a sometimes complex area of land use law: vested rights. As Dan notes at the end of the article, the application of vested rights principles varies from state to state based on state statute and judicial interpretation. Please consult with your municipal attorney about any specific situations you face.

Read the start of this article below; to view full article you need to be a PlannersWeb member. Already a member? — be sure you’re logged-in. Not a member? Consider joining the PlannersWeb.

The fact pattern of each case will often be key to determining whether vested rights have been acquired.

Local governments, planning boards, and developers are often faced with the question as to when the local government’s need to respond to new or changed circumstances is appropriately balanced against the property owner’s (i.e., permit applicant’s) need for certainty.

The question is often framed in terms of whether the property owner’s right to develop has “vested” and cannot be taken away or changed by subsequent municipal action.

Not surprisingly, disputes over vesting are often the source of headaches, controversy, and sometimes litigation, during the development process.

Consider the following scenario:

The planning commission has recommended to the governing body a zoning change that would prohibit gas stations from one of the city’s zoning districts. The governing body has held hearings on this zoning change. But shortly before the city’s governing body adopts the zoning change, a property owner files an application to build a gas station in this zoning district. Does the applicant have the right to a permit based on the zoning in place at the time he filed the application? In other words, has he gained “vested” (zoning) rights?

The situation described above is not uncommon. The scenario above is drawn from the fact pattern of an Illinois case, Chicago Title and Trust Co. v. Village of Palatine, 22. Il.App.2d 264, 160 NW 2d (1959):

illustration of an old-style gas stationOn November 27, 1957 the Standard Oil Company filed an application with the Village of Palatine’s building commissioner for a zoning permit to construct a gas station. The application was returned with the request that a change be made in the plans and specifications submitted with the application. The applicant made revisions and resubmitted them to the building commissioner who took no immediate action. Under the then existing zoning ordinance, a gas station was a permissible use in the zoning district.

Earlier in the year (six months before the application was filed), the Village’s governing body had referred to the zoning board the question of enacting a comprehensive amendment to the zoning ordinance. Over the following months, the zoning board and governing body held a series of meetings and public hearings on the proposed amendment (under which gas stations would not be permitted uses in the zoning district). The Village’s governing body voted to adopt the ordinance on December 23, 1957 (about a month after the zoning permit application was filed), effective three weeks later. After the passage of the ordinance, the Village refused to issue a permit for the gas station, even though the application had been filed before the Village’s adoption of the zoning change.

In discussing the issue of whether the Plaintiff had acquired vested rights, the Illinois court stated:

“It would be utterly illogical to hold that, after a zoning commission had prepared a comprehensive zoning ordinance or an amendment thereto, which was on file and open to public inspection and upon which public hearings had been held, and while the ordinance was under consideration, any person could by merely filing an application compel the municipality to issue a permit which would allow him to establish a use which he either knew or could have known would be forbidden by the proposed ordinance, and by so doing nullify the entire work of the municipality in endeavoring to carry out the purpose for which the zoning law was enacted.”

Let’s change the above fact pattern a bit. …

End of excerpt

… to read the rest of the article you need to be a member. If you’re already a member, be sure you’re logged in (use the box in the upper right-hand corner of the page).

Dan ShapiroDan Shapiro is a partner with the law firm of Robbins, Salomon and Patt, Ltd in Chicago, Illinois. He practices in the areas of land use, zoning, governmental relations, municipal law, and civil litigation.

Dan represents a wide variety of private developers as well as governmental entities and advises his clients closely on issues of concern. As part of his practice, he has successfully presented legislative and administrative matters before plan commissions, zoning boards, and other village, city, and county bodies.

Dan also is an adjunct professor teaching land use at Kent Law School in Chicago, and is the Chairman of the Village of Deerfield (Illinois) Plan Commission.

You must be logged in or a PlannersWeb member to read the rest of the article.