## Facts

- A civil-rights organization and related plaintiffs challenged a New Jersey township’s zoning scheme as unlawfully excluding low- and moderate-income households.
- An earlier state supreme court decision had held that developing municipalities must provide a “realistic opportunity” for low- and moderate-income housing as part of the constitutional duty to promote the general welfare.
- After that decision, the township amended its zoning ordinance and created districts purportedly allowing lower-income housing.
- Plaintiffs argued the amendments were largely cosmetic and did not, in practical effect, make affordable housing feasible.
- The trial court upheld the amended ordinance as compliant.
- The state supreme court accepted the appeal to determine compliance in the township and to clarify statewide implementation and remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether the township’s amended zoning ordinance provided a realistic opportunity for construction of low- and moderate-income housing as required by the state constitutional general-welfare obligation.
2. Whether developing municipalities have an affirmative obligation to provide their fair share of the region’s present and prospective need for low- and moderate-income housing.
3. What standards and judicial remedies are appropriate when municipalities fail to satisfy that obligation.

## Decision

- The court reversed the judgment upholding the amended ordinance and remanded.
- The court held the township failed to comply because its zoning did not provide a realistic opportunity for low- and moderate-income housing.
- The court reaffirmed and strengthened a statewide constitutional doctrine requiring each developing municipality to provide, through land-use regulation, a realistic opportunity for its fair share of regional affordable-housing need.
- The court authorized expanded enforcement tools, including appointment of special masters and “builder’s remedies” permitting inclusionary, higher-density development approvals conditioned on substantial affordable set-asides.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning is an exercise of the police power that must promote the constitutional “general welfare” of the state, not merely local fiscal or parochial interests.
- Developing municipalities have an affirmative constitutional duty to use land-use regulation to create a realistic opportunity for their fair share of the region’s present and prospective low- and moderate-income housing needs.
- “Realistic opportunity” requires substantive feasibility; paper permission for affordable housing is insufficient if regulatory conditions, market constraints, or ordinance design make production unlikely.
- Exclusionary zoning that effectively shifts affordable-housing burdens to other municipalities violates the general-welfare obligation.
- Courts may order strong, production-oriented remedies for noncompliance, including builder’s remedies, ongoing judicial supervision, and use of special masters.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated the township’s post-amendment zoning as exclusionary, made the fair-share affordable-housing obligation a concrete statewide constitutional requirement for developing municipalities, and expanded judicial remedial authority to ensure actual production of low- and moderate-income housing.


S. Burlington Cnty. NAACP v. Twp. of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel II), 456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983)