## Facts

- The Archdiocese of Philadelphia owned a former parochial elementary school (built 1912) in Philadelphia’s Port Richmond neighborhood, a lawful nonconforming use under later zoning.
- The school closed in 2008 due to declining enrollment and revenue, leaving the building vacant and in disrepair.
- The Archdiocese obtained federal HUD Section 202 funding to convert the building into a 63-unit low-income senior apartment complex.
- The City’s Department of Licenses and Inspections denied a zoning/use permit, citing noncompliance with the R-10A district (use not permitted) and multiple dimensional requirements, including parking shortfalls and undersized spaces.
- The Archdiocese appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and sought use and dimensional variances, presenting testimony supporting feasibility and project need.
- The ZBA granted the variances; the Court of Common Pleas affirmed.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, concluding the Archdiocese failed to prove “unnecessary hardship,” focusing on an asserted lack of proof that the entire building was “functionally obsolete.”
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the Commonwealth Court applied an improper hardship standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commonwealth Court applied an improper, overly restrictive “unnecessary hardship” standard for a use variance by effectively requiring proof that the entire structure was functionally obsolete.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the ZBA’s findings that the statutory variance criteria, including unnecessary hardship and consistency with the public interest, were met.

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Commonwealth Court.
- The Court reinstated the order of the Court of Common Pleas and the ZBA’s grant of use and dimensional variances.
- The Court held that the Commonwealth Court erred by imposing a heightened “functional obsolescence of the entire building” requirement.
- The Court concluded the ZBA’s hardship finding was supported by substantial evidence and was entitled to deference.

## Legal Principles

- A variance requires proof of unnecessary hardship from strict application of the ordinance, that the hardship is not self-inflicted and is unique to the property, and that the variance is not contrary to the public interest.
- In use-variance cases, “unnecessary hardship” is not limited to showing that a structure is wholly functionally obsolete; hardship may be shown through practical unsuitability for permitted uses or prohibitive costs of conversion to conforming uses.
- Appellate courts must defer to zoning boards’ fact-finding and discretionary determinations when supported by substantial evidence and may not reweigh the record under the guise of applying the hardship standard.
- Public-interest review focuses on whether the variance will adversely affect health, safety, and welfare; boards may impose conditions to mitigate impacts such as parking and traffic.

## Conclusion

The court held that unnecessary hardship for a use variance may be established through practical and economic infeasibility of conforming the property to permitted uses and rejected a rule requiring proof that an entire building is functionally obsolete, reinstating the zoning board’s approved variances for the senior housing conversion.


Marshall v. City of Philadelphia, 97 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2014)