Facts
- Civil-rights organizations and low- and moderate-income individuals challenged Mount Laurel’s zoning ordinance as effectively excluding low- and moderate-income households, many of whom were racial minorities or would-be residents.
- The ordinance limited residential development to low-density, single-family detached homes in all residential zones.
- The ordinance prohibited attached townhouses, mobile homes, and apartments anywhere in the township.
- The zoning scheme, together with township policy, was found to favor upper- and middle-income residents and to make lower-cost housing types infeasible.
- The township’s approach was tied to fiscal aims, including limiting school-age population and property-tax burdens, rather than meeting housing needs.
- The trial court invalidated the ordinance and ordered the township to study housing needs and propose affirmative measures; the township appealed, and plaintiffs cross-appealed seeking recognition of a regional “fair share” obligation.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court took the case directly on certification.
Issues
- Whether a municipality may use land-use regulations to make low- and moderate-income housing physically and economically impracticable, consistent with the New Jersey Constitution’s general welfare requirement.
- Whether a developing municipality’s obligation extends beyond residents and those with local ties to include a fair share of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing.
- What remedy is appropriate when a zoning ordinance is found to be exclusionary and inconsistent with the general welfare.
Decision
- The court held Mount Laurel’s zoning ordinance invalid because it functioned to exclude low- and moderate-income households and therefore failed to serve the constitutional requirement that zoning promote the general welfare.
- The court ruled that the general welfare in land-use regulation is not confined to municipal borders and includes consideration of regional housing needs.
- The court recognized an affirmative constitutional obligation for developing municipalities to provide, through land-use regulation, a realistic opportunity for construction of their fair share of the regional need for low- and moderate-income housing.
- On remedy, the court afforded the township the first opportunity to enact constitutionally compliant land-use measures rather than imposing an ongoing, detailed judicially managed program at that time.
Legal Principles
- Zoning, as an exercise of the police power, must serve the general welfare and cannot be justified primarily by local fiscal objectives such as minimizing the property-tax rate.
- The “general welfare” component of state constitutional zoning authority includes the housing needs of low- and moderate-income households.
- In developing municipalities, the general welfare has a regional dimension; local land-use controls must account for regional consequences, including regional affordable-housing shortages.
- A municipality violates the general welfare requirement when its land-use regime effectively makes low- and moderate-income housing impracticable and thereby excludes such households.
- Compliance requires more than avoiding explicit prohibitions; a municipality must structure its regulations to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share of regional low- and moderate-income housing.
Conclusion
The court invalidated Mount Laurel’s exclusionary zoning and announced that developing municipalities have an affirmative constitutional duty to provide a realistic opportunity for their fair share of regional low- and moderate-income housing, leaving initial implementation to municipal action under judicially stated constitutional standards.