## Facts

- Property owners held a four-acre tract in a Harrisburg residential district and planned to construct five garden-type apartment buildings.
- On April 25, 1949, they applied to the city building inspector for a building permit and tendered the required fee.
- Harrisburg had a planning commission and a building code, but no comprehensive zoning ordinance had been adopted; planning work was ongoing.
- On May 10, 1949, after the permit application was filed, city council enacted Ordinance No. 153 as an “emergency” measure to preserve the residential “status quo” pending completion of comprehensive zoning.
- Ordinance No. 153 barred construction in residential districts except single-family detached dwellings.
- The building inspector denied the permit based on Ordinance No. 153.
- The owners sued in equity to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance and compel issuance of the permit; the trial court granted relief, and the city appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a third-class city had statutory authority to enact an interim “status-quo” zoning ordinance restricting residential construction before adopting comprehensive zoning and without following statutory zoning procedures.
2. Whether Ordinance No. 153 was valid and could lawfully support denial of the requested building permit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the decree for the property owners.
- Ordinance No. 153 was invalid because the city lacked authority to impose an interim zoning freeze outside the zoning enabling framework.
- The city and its officials could not rely on Ordinance No. 153 to deny the permit; enforcement was enjoined and the permit was to issue subject to ordinary building code compliance.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality has no inherent zoning power; it may regulate land use only to the extent, and in the manner, authorized by the legislature.
- Where the legislature prescribes a specific method for exercising zoning power, the municipality must comply with that method; statutory procedures are conditions of valid exercise, not optional formalities.
- A temporary or “interim” ordinance that substantially restricts land use to preserve the “status quo,” without statutory authorization and without compliance with required zoning procedures (including planning commission involvement, notice/hearing mechanisms, and an appeals structure), is ultra vires and void.
- Restrictions on otherwise lawful property use must rest on a validly enacted zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to the enabling act’s requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that Harrisburg could not block the proposed apartment construction through an emergency interim ordinance enacted outside the statutory zoning scheme; until a comprehensive zoning ordinance is validly adopted under the enabling law, property owners are entitled to permits for lawful development not prohibited by valid regulation.


Kline v. City of Harrisburg, 362 Pa. 438, 68 A.2d 182 (Pa. 1949)