## Facts

- A New York not-for-profit Episcopal church owned a sanctuary and an adjacent seven-story “Community House” used for religious and charitable programs on Park Avenue in Manhattan.
- New York City designated both buildings as individual landmarks and included them within a historic district under the city’s Landmarks Law, administered by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).
- The church sought to demolish the Community House and replace it with a 40-plus-story commercial office tower, asserting that tower revenue was needed to fund and expand its ministries.
- The LPC denied demolition and new-construction applications, concluding the church had not shown the Community House was incapable of earning a reasonable return in its current or modified form and remained suitable for institutional use.
- The LPC indicated openness to proposals to renovate and expand the Community House rather than replace it.
- After a bench trial, the district court found the church had not proved the existing buildings (or reasonably modified versions) prevented it from conducting its religious and charitable mission, nor that renovation/expansion was financially infeasible.
- The district court entered judgment for the city; the church appealed. A neighborhood opposition group sought to intervene on appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether applying the Landmarks Law to bar demolition of the Community House and construction of a commercial office tower imposed an unconstitutional burden on the church’s free exercise of religion.
2. Whether the same application of the Landmarks Law effected a regulatory taking without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the application of the Landmarks Law violated the Establishment Clause through excessive entanglement, and whether denial of a motion to intervene was proper.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for the city.
- The court held the Landmarks Law, as applied, did not violate the Free Exercise Clause because the church failed to prove the regulation prevented it from carrying out its religious and charitable mission in its existing or reasonably modified buildings.
- The court held there was no taking because the church retained economically viable, mission-consistent use of the property and was not deprived of all practical use by denial of a more lucrative redevelopment.
- The court rejected the Establishment Clause/excessive-entanglement challenge because the Landmarks Law is a secular, neutral preservation scheme not directed at religious doctrine or worship.
- The court affirmed denial of intervention, concluding the city adequately represented preservation interests and additional parties were unnecessary.

## Legal Principles

- Neutral, generally applicable land-use regulation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause absent proof that it coerces changes in religious practice or prevents performance of religious and charitable functions.
- A restriction that forecloses a more profitable use of religious property, without impairing the institution’s ability to conduct its mission in existing or reasonably adapted facilities, is not a substantial free-exercise burden.
- Regulatory takings claims arising from landmark restrictions are assessed under the Penn Central framework, including economic impact, interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
- No taking occurs where the owner retains a reasonable, economically viable use and the regulation is a nonpossessory land-use measure rather than a physical occupation.
- Application of a secular historic-preservation regime to religious property, without control over doctrine, worship, or internal governance, does not constitute excessive entanglement.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld landmark-designation limits on a church’s proposed commercial redevelopment, concluding that preserving the existing building did not unconstitutionally burden religious exercise or effect a taking because the church could continue its religious and charitable work in the current or reasonably modified facilities, and the preservation scheme remained secular and generally applicable.


Rector, Wardens & Members of the Vestry of St. Bartholomew's Church v. City of New York, 914 F.2d 348 (2d Cir. 1990)