## Facts

- The City of Rockford rezoned subdivision lots (including lots 17 and 18 in May 1968 and lot 16 in September 1968) from residential to local business.
- Immediately after the initial rezoning, the then-owner recorded a restrictive covenant tied to the rezoning process, limiting the property’s use to offices despite the local business district allowing many uses by ordinance.
- In February 1969, the original covenant was waived and replaced with a new recorded covenant that prohibited numerous local business uses otherwise permitted by the zoning classification.
- Erik Cederberg negotiated to buy the lots intending to build a laundry center (laundromat with related retail/service components) and sought assurance that the use would be permitted.
- Before making a written purchase offer, Cederberg (through intermediaries and later directly) consulted city personnel; he was told the proposed construction would be allowed.
- Cederberg’s January 1971 written offer was contingent on financing and obtaining a building permit for the proposed project.
- From February to April 1971, Cederberg submitted sketches and plans and received oral assurances from the city building inspector that a permit would issue; the inspector later testified he was unaware of the restrictive covenant during those discussions.
- After Cederberg proceeded, city officials ordered work stopped, relying on the restrictive covenant.
- Cederberg sued for declaratory relief challenging the covenant and the rezoning ordinance and also alleged equitable estoppel based on city officials’ representations and his reliance.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may regulate land use or condition rezoning through a private restrictive covenant recorded in connection with the rezoning decision.
2. Whether a rezoning ordinance adopted in connection with, and dependent on, an invalid restrictive covenant remains valid.
3. Whether the City could be equitably estopped from denying a building permit based on officials’ assurances and the property owner’s reliance.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the ruling that the restrictive covenant was void as an improper municipal attempt to control land use by covenant rather than by zoning ordinance.
- The appellate court reversed the determination that the rezoning ordinance was valid, holding the ordinance invalid because it was adopted as part of the same conditional arrangement and lacked an independent zoning basis in the record.
- The court remanded for findings and determination on the equitable estoppel count, which the trial court had not addressed.
- Disposition: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning power is legislative and must be exercised through ordinances adopted pursuant to statutory procedures, not through private restrictive covenants used to implement or condition zoning decisions.
- “Contract zoning” (rezoning by bargain or quid pro quo, including covenants demanded or exchanged as a condition of rezoning) is unlawful because it risks substituting private agreement for legislative judgment and public-welfare zoning criteria.
- A zoning ordinance must stand or fall on its own validity under applicable zoning standards; where the ordinance is shown to be the product of an invalid conditional arrangement and not supported by independent zoning considerations, it is invalid.
- When a pleaded equitable estoppel theory is left undecided, remand is appropriate for factual findings on representations, authority, reliance, and resulting detriment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Rockford could not accomplish or condition zoning through recorded restrictive covenants, invalidated the rezoning ordinance because it was tied to the void covenant rather than independent zoning criteria, and remanded for adjudication of Cederberg’s equitable estoppel claim based on alleged official assurances and reliance.


Cederberg v. City of Rockford, 8 Ill. App. 3d 984, 291 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)