## Facts

- Dennis Baker owned a home in Plainfield, New Jersey, located in a zone limited to “single-family” use.
- The zoning ordinance defined “family” as a “single non-profit housekeeping unit,” but also provided that more than four persons “not related by blood, marriage, or adoption” could not be considered a family.
- Baker’s household generally consisted of nine people: Baker, his wife, their three daughters, and an unrelated woman (Mrs. Conata) with her three children.
- The household lived together as an “extended family,” sharing meals, responsibilities, expenses, and mutual support in a single housekeeping arrangement.
- Baker was charged three times with violating the ordinance by permitting more than one family to live in the dwelling and was convicted in municipal court; the county court affirmed on a trial de novo.
- The Appellate Division reversed, concluding the ordinance’s relationship-based definition of family was unconstitutional under the New Jersey Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality may, consistent with the New Jersey Constitution, restrict occupancy in single-family zones by defining “family” using biological or legal relationship criteria and a numerical cap on unrelated persons.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division and set aside Baker’s convictions.
- The Court held unconstitutional the ordinance provision that excluded groups of more than four unrelated persons from the definition of “family.”
- The Court concluded that, although preserving residential “family” character and preventing disruptive uses were legitimate objectives, the relationship-based restriction did not bear a substantial relationship to those objectives.
- The Court treated Baker’s household as a lawful “single non-profit housekeeping unit” under the functional portion of the ordinance’s definition.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning regulations must be substantially related to legitimate land-use objectives to satisfy the New Jersey Constitution.
- A zoning definition of “family” that turns on blood, marriage, or adoption, and caps unrelated co-occupants, is unconstitutional when it arbitrarily excludes households that operate as a single, stable housekeeping unit.
- Relationship status is an unreliable proxy for neighborhood impacts such as overcrowding or nuisance; related households may generate similar impacts as unrelated households.
- Municipalities may address density and overcrowding through neutral, space-related occupancy limits and other non-discriminatory regulations, rather than household-status classifications.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Plainfield’s relationship-based limitation on who may constitute a “family” in a single-family zone, holding that excluding more than four unrelated co-occupants lacked a substantial relation to legitimate zoning goals and impermissibly barred a functioning single housekeeping unit.


State v. Baker, 81 N.J. 99, 405 A.2d 368 (N.J. 1979)