Judicial Review of Local Land-Use Decisions in California

The California courts have a reputation for sustaining local land-use controls where no other state court would do so. The reputation was certainly deserved prior to 1966, when courts still presumed that necessary findings to support a variance had been made and that the findings were properly supported. Prior to that time no appellate court had ever reversed the grant of a variance. This was changed, however, by Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Dibene, 245 Cal. App. 2d 160;53 Cal Rptr. 610 (1966) and Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Assoc. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 66 Cal.2d 767, 59 Cal. Rptr. 146,427 P.2d 810 (1967). Thereafter, where the ordinance required specific findings, findings on each of the standards for a variance had to be made and each had to be supported by substantial evidence. This standard was extended to the granting of conditional use permits and other major work of the zoning board of appeals in Stoddard v. Edelman, 4 Cal. App. 3d 544, 84 Cal. Rptr. 443 (1970). Cautious attorneys who recommended that such standards be applied even if not specified in the ordinance were also vindicated recently by Topanga Assoc. for a Scenic Community v. Los Angeles, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836 (1974).