## Facts

- A developer planned a three-story, roughly 45–46 unit apartment project on five lots in the Elysian Park area of Los Angeles.
- The developer investigated the property and confirmed that existing zoning allowed the proposed density, then agreed to purchase the site for $450,000.
- In reliance on existing zoning and anticipated approvals, the developer prepared architectural and soil plans, sought grading/demolition/building permits, and obtained purchase-money and construction financing exceeding $1.8 million.
- Escrow closed in August 1984, and the City issued grading and demolition permits and later building permits.
- Neighborhood residents opposed the project, arguing that the project’s density exceeded limits stated in the City’s general plan even if it complied with existing zoning.
- During the dispute, the City adopted an interim ordinance aimed at projects exceeding general plan density limits while zoning was being brought into conformity; the zoning administrator concluded the developer had a vested right to proceed notwithstanding the interim ordinance.
- Residents sought administrative mandamus in superior court to revoke the building permit; the trial court denied relief, finding revocation inequitable in light of the developer’s expenditures and concluding vested rights existed.

## Issues

1. Whether a building permit that conforms to existing zoning is invalid solely because it is inconsistent with the density limits in the municipality’s general plan, under Government Code section 65860.
2. Whether the developer acquired vested rights through substantial good-faith reliance on lawfully issued permits such that revocation would be inequitable and improper.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of mandamus and vacated its appellate stay that had preserved the status quo during the appeal.
- The court held that Government Code section 65860 requires consistency between zoning ordinances and the general plan, and does not by itself impose a separate requirement that each building permit be consistent with the general plan.
- The court held the developer had vested rights to complete the project because valid permits issued and the developer made substantial expenditures and commitments in good-faith reliance.
- The court accepted that the interim ordinance could not retroactively defeat the developer’s vested rights arising from previously issued permits and reliance.

## Legal Principles

- Government Code section 65860 addresses consistency between zoning ordinances and the general plan; it does not automatically invalidate permits issued under existing zoning merely because the general plan would support different standards.
- Vested rights arise when a landowner has (1) a validly issued permit and (2) performed substantial work or incurred substantial liabilities in good-faith reliance on that permit.
- Interim land-use restrictions generally may not retroactively extinguish vested rights created by valid permits and substantial reliance.
- Mandamus relief to revoke permits may be denied on equitable grounds where revocation would be unjust due to the permittee’s substantial reliance and commitments.

## Conclusion

A permit issued in conformity with then-effective zoning was not invalid solely because the project exceeded general plan density policies, and the developer’s substantial good-faith reliance on valid permits created vested rights that made revocation inequitable.


Elysian Heights Residents Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 182 Cal. App. 3d 21, 227 Cal. Rptr. 226 (Ct. App. 1986)