## Facts

- A nonprofit association of Topanga Canyon taxpayers and property owners opposed a county-granted variance for development on approximately 28 acres in Topanga Canyon, Los Angeles County.
- The parcel was zoned for light agriculture and single-family residences with a one-acre minimum lot size.
- The Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission granted a variance permitting a 93-space mobile-home park sought by the property’s developer.
- The staff report cited steep terrain, partial preservation of open space, and demand for lower-cost housing, but provided no comparative information about similarly zoned nearby properties.
- The governing variance standard required “special circumstances” such that strict zoning would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties in the vicinity.
- The association appealed to the County Board of Supervisors, which upheld the variance.
- The association sought administrative mandamus (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5) to set aside the variance; the superior court denied relief and the court of appeal affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a local agency granting a zoning variance must issue findings that explain how the evidence supports the decision sufficiently to permit judicial review in administrative mandamus.
2. Whether, on administrative mandamus review of a variance, a court must evaluate both (a) whether substantial evidence supports the agency’s findings and (b) whether the findings legally support the variance under the applicable standards.
3. Whether the findings and record supporting this variance satisfied the “special circumstances” and comparative-deprivation requirements for granting a variance.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed.
- It held that local agencies acting in an adjudicatory capacity when granting variances must make findings that reveal the analytic path from evidence to decision.
- It held that mandamus review requires determining whether substantial evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the agency action under the governing variance criteria.
- It concluded the agency’s findings were inadequate and did not support the variance because they failed to demonstrate the required special circumstances and comparative deprivation relative to similarly zoned nearby properties.
- The court directed issuance of a writ of administrative mandamus setting aside the variance.

## Legal Principles

- An agency granting a zoning variance must issue findings that connect the evidence to the ultimate decision in a way that permits meaningful judicial review.
- In administrative mandamus review under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1094.5 (where no fundamental vested right is implicated), courts apply the substantial evidence test to the agency’s findings, but also assess whether those findings satisfy the legal prerequisites for the agency’s action.
- Variances are exceptional relief for parcels with peculiar, property-specific hardships; they may not be used to effect a de facto rezoning that conflicts with the zoning scheme.
- Findings must do more than restate statutory conclusions; they must identify specific facts showing that (1) special circumstances unique to the property exist and (2) strict zoning would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties in the vicinity.

## Conclusion

The court required local variance-granting bodies to produce adequate, reviewable findings and clarified that mandamus review examines both evidentiary support for the findings and whether those findings satisfy the legal standards for a variance; because the county’s findings did not establish special circumstances or comparative deprivation, the variance was set aside.


Topanga Ass’n for a Scenic Cmty. v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 522 P.2d 12 (Cal. 1974)