## Facts

- Laurel J. Ely Jr. and Mildred E. Ely owned and operated a commercial tire and automotive service center on Lincoln Way in Ames, Iowa.
- The parcel immediately adjacent to the Elys’ business was a single-family house at 218 Lincoln Way, built in 1920 by the Martin family.
- For roughly the 1920s through the late 1940s, the Martins provided room and board to African-American Iowa State University students when those students were denied housing elsewhere, and the family became known locally for work tied to integration in Ames.
- Over time, the Lincoln Way corridor became heavily commercial and was zoned “Highway-Oriented Commercial.” The Martin house remained in residential use as a legal nonconforming use.
- A nonprofit entity associated with honoring the Martins sought historic protection for the house based on its social history and its architectural character (Craftsman style and one of the few remaining houses on Lincoln Way).
- Under the Ames Municipal Code, the Ames Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application and recommended designation of the property as a local historic landmark.
- The Planning and Zoning Commission also considered the matter and recommended approval.
- The City Council of Ames held public proceedings and ultimately adopted an ordinance designating the Martin property as a historic landmark.
- The Elys opposed the designation, asserting the house had fallen into disrepair and that landmark status would limit redevelopment in the area and reduce the commercial value of nearby properties, including their business.
- The Elys filed a petition for writ of certiorari in district court challenging the designation on due process, equal protection, and illegal spot-zoning grounds. After a bench trial, the district court upheld the City Council’s action.
- The Iowa Court of Appeals granted certiorari to review the district court’s ruling and the City Council’s designation.

## Issues

1. Whether the City Council’s designation of the Martin property as a historic landmark violated the Elys’ procedural or substantive due process rights.
2. Whether the designation violated equal protection by treating the Martin property (and, by consequence, the Elys) differently from other properties without a rational basis.
3. Whether designating a single property as a historic landmark within a highway-oriented commercial district amounted to illegal spot zoning.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment and annulled the writ of certiorari.
- The court concluded the City’s process provided notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, defeating the procedural due process challenge.
- The court rejected the substantive due process claim because the landmark designation was a rational means of serving legitimate governmental objectives related to historic preservation.
- Applying rational-basis review, the court rejected the equal protection claim because the Martin property had distinguishing historic and architectural characteristics supporting different treatment.
- The court rejected the illegal spot-zoning claim, concluding the single-property landmark designation was tied to public-welfare goals and was not shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or inconsistent with the City’s planning policies.

## Legal Principles

- On certiorari review, a court examines whether the challenged governmental action was illegal (including whether it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable), and it does not reweigh policy choices committed to local government.
- Procedural due process in local land-use decisionmaking is satisfied when affected parties receive notice and a meaningful opportunity to present objections through the procedures provided by law.
- Substantive due process is not violated by a land-use restriction that bears a real and substantial relation to a legitimate governmental objective; historic preservation is a legitimate objective.
- Equal protection challenges to land-use classifications generally receive rational-basis review unless a suspect classification or fundamental right is involved; differential treatment is permissible when supported by legitimate reasons reflected in the record.
- A single-parcel land-use action is not illegal spot zoning merely because it applies to one property; illegality turns on whether the classification is arbitrary or unreasonable, serves only private interests, or is inconsistent with the community’s planning objectives.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld Ames’s ordinance designating the Martin house as a local historic landmark, holding that the City provided adequate notice and hearing, acted on legitimate historic-preservation grounds supported by the property’s unique history and architecture, and did not violate due process, equal protection, or Iowa’s prohibition on illegal spot zoning.


Ely v. City Council of Ames, 787 N.W.2d 479 (2010)