## Facts

- A borough amended its residential zoning ordinance to limit occupancy of certain dwellings to “families.”
- The ordinance defined “family” as one or more persons living together as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit that is stable and permanent, either a traditional family or its functional equivalent.
- The ordinance’s stated purpose was to preserve family-style living and neighborhood stability; the borough acknowledged the amendment aimed to keep groups of college students out of single-family zones.
- A homeowner purchased a house in a single-family zone intending that her brother and nine friends, all college students, would live there (ten unrelated students total).
- The students lived together in one household, sharing common areas, chores, and expenses.
- The borough sought an injunction to bar occupancy on the ground that the residents did not qualify as a “family” under the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether ten unrelated college students living together in one dwelling constituted a “family” under an ordinance requiring a stable, permanent, single non-profit housekeeping unit that is a traditional family or its functional equivalent.

## Decision

- The trial court upheld the ordinance but found the students qualified as a “family” under its definition and denied injunctive relief.
- The Appellate Division affirmed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the students constituted a “family” within the ordinance because they operated as a single, non-profit housekeeping unit and functional equivalent of a traditional family.

## Legal Principles

- When a zoning ordinance defines “family” to include functional equivalents of traditional families, unrelated occupants may qualify if they live as a stable and permanent single housekeeping unit.
- A municipality may pursue neighborhood stability through zoning, but it must apply its ordinance according to its adopted criteria; it cannot exclude a household that meets the ordinance’s functional-family definition based solely on the occupants’ unrelated status or student identity.
- Whether a household satisfies “single housekeeping unit” and “functional equivalency” standards is fact-intensive and may turn on shared living arrangements, expenses, and housekeeping responsibilities rather than formal kinship.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed denial of an injunction because the ten students’ shared, non-commercial household met the ordinance’s definition of “family” as a stable, single housekeeping unit functioning like a traditional family.


Borough of Glassboro v. Vallorosi, 117 N.J. 421, 568 A.2d 888 (1990)