Village Of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

272 U.S. 365 (1926)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Amber Realty Co. (P) owned sixty-eight acres in the Village of Euclid (D). D is an Ohio municipal corporation. D enacted a comprehensive zoning ordinance on November 13, 1922, restricting the use of P's property. The entire village was divided by the ordinance into six classes of use district denominated by U-1 to U-6, three classes of height districts denominated by H-1 to H-3, and four classes of area districts denominated by A-1 to A-4. The case then gives a description of each individual classification such as U-1 is restricted to single family dwellings, public parks, water towers, and reservoirs, suburban and interurban electric railway passenger stations and rights of way and farming, non-commercial greenhouse nurseries and truck gardening. P’s land came under U-s, U-3, and U-6. Annexed to the ordinance and made part of it was a zone map, which showed that the use, area, and height districts are all allowed to overlap one another. The enforcement of the ordinance was entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. The board is authorized to adopt rules and regulations and decisions of the inspectors are allowed to be appealed to the board by any person claiming an adverse impact. The board may also impose penalties for violations. The board was given power and authority to interpret the ordinance in harmony with its general purpose and intent so that public health, safety, and general welfare may be secure and substantial justice may be done. Because of this zoning, P claimed that his property value decreased by $7,500 per acre. P had kept the land for industrial purposes, and it was worth $10,000 per acre. If it was only used for residential purposes, it was worth only $2,500 per acre. P claims that the natural and logical use of his land was for industrial development as it was immediately in the path of progressive industrial development. P contends that the ordinance attempts to restrict and control the lawful use of his lands so as to confiscate and destroy a great part of their value. P claims that the ordinance is in derogation of the Fourteenth Amendment and is in violation of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. P sued to prevent enforcement of this ordinance, claiming violation of the 14th Amendment rights of due process. The lower court found that the normal and reasonably to be expected use and development of P’s land adjoining Euclid Ave. was for general trade and commercial purposes such as retail stores and that the balance of the land was suited for industrial and trade purposes. P received judgment. D appealed; the zoning ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power of the state.