## Facts

- A small Missouri village adopted a single zoning ordinance that restricted all land within its boundaries to single-family residential use, stating a purpose of preserving the village as a residential district.
- Landowners bought a residence on a six-acre parcel; a substantial portion of the parcel bordered a major roadway outside the village where surrounding property developed into commercial uses over time.
- The landowners sought to rezone the roadway-adjacent portion of their parcel for commercial use while keeping the remainder residential.
- The village denied the rezoning request based on the existing ordinance’s uniform single-family residential restriction.
- The landowners sued, alleging (1) the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face and as applied under substantive due process, and (2) the ordinance was statutorily invalid because the village had not adopted a separate comprehensive plan under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.040.
- The trial court ruled for the landowners, declaring the ordinance unconstitutional and invalid for lack of a comprehensive plan; the village appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.040 requires a municipality to adopt a separate, formal comprehensive plan as a prerequisite to valid zoning, or whether a comprehensive plan may be inferred from zoning enactments and related legislative actions.
2. Whether an ordinance zoning an entire municipality exclusively for single-family residential use is facially unconstitutional under substantive due process.
3. Whether the landowners’ as-applied challenge required further fact-specific consideration after resolving the facial and statutory validity questions.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment striking down the ordinance and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that § 89.040 does not require adoption of a separate, written document labeled a “comprehensive plan”; a comprehensive plan may be inferred from the zoning ordinance and related municipal enactments.
- The court held the all-residential ordinance was not facially unconstitutional merely because it excluded commercial uses throughout the village.
- The court left open the possibility of an as-applied challenge, directing further proceedings consistent with its holdings.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning regulations must be made “in accordance with a comprehensive plan” under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 89.040, but the plan need not be a standalone, formally adopted document; it may be inferred from the municipality’s zoning scheme and related legislative actions reflecting an overall land-use policy.
- Zoning ordinances are presumed valid; they satisfy substantive due process if reasonably related to legitimate public objectives (public health, safety, morals, or general welfare).
- Courts defer to local legislative zoning judgments when the reasonableness of the classification is “fairly debatable” and will not substitute judicial judgment for legislative judgment on close questions.
- A municipality’s decision to zone all property for single-family residential use can be a permissible exercise of police power when supported by legitimate objectives such as preserving residential character and limiting impacts associated with commercial development.

## Conclusion

The court held that a small municipality’s comprehensive plan may be inferred from its zoning enactments and that an all-residential zoning ordinance is not facially invalid under substantive due process solely because it excludes commercial uses, while permitting further litigation of any fact-dependent as-applied challenge on remand.


State ex rel. Chiavola v. Village of Oakwood, 886 S.W.2d 74 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1994)