Municipal Affairs Doctrice and Land Use

The right of the City to control the use of land within its jurisdiction has been consistently recognized by the California Supreme Court as a right that is a municipal affair. (Ceeed v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 306, 323, stating “[a]lthough planning and zoning in the conventional sense have traditionally been deemed municipal affairs, where the ecological and environmental impact of land use affect the people of the entire state, they can no longer remain matters of purely local concern.”.)

Permissive Zoning

While permissive zoning can create presumed prohibitions, that does not automatically create an actionable nuisance. (See Urgent Care Medical Services v. City of Pasadena (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1086, 1094-1095.) Section 19.148.030(A) defines what constitutes an actionable nuisance, and states that “violating” a provision of the code constitutes a nuisance. This is not the same as “unauthorized use” constitutes a nuisance. (See City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1095.)

Private Party Actions/Municipal Actions

“In general the concept is long-standing that a private person who suffers identifiable harm by reason of a violation of a municipal zoning law may sue the violator for compensatory damages and may also seek injunctive relief when applicable.” (Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 940 citing Sapiro v. Frisbie (1928) 93 Cal.App. 299, 313; see also McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247, 250, 253-254.) “While in the vast majority of zoning cases a private party is the defendant, there appears no valid reason why, under the proper circumstances, an action against a municipal body for violating the zoning ordinances of a neighboring municipality cannot be maintained.” (Id.)

Zoning Codes and Court Interpretation

ABCO, LLC v. Eversley (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1092, 1100 turned on whether the term “dwelling” as defined in section 12.03 could be made applicable to section 151.02, which also used the word “dwelling.” The Court of Appeal held that it could precisely because section 151.02 states that “[w]ords and phrases not defined herein shall be construed as defined in sections 12.03 and 152.02 of this Code, if defined therein.”

In Carter v. Cohen, supra, 188 Cal.App.4th at page 1047, the Court of Appeal held that a guesthouse was a “rental unit” subject to the RSO because the definition of “rental unit” under the RSO includes a “dwelling unit, as specified in section 12.03.”

City's Action to Enforce a Condition

“When there is a failure to comply with a zoning ordinance by a failure to comply with a condition of a variance, the city establishing the zoning ordinance must be allowed to bring an action seeking to specifically enforce performance of the condition of the variance.” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 342.) “The city's right to bring the action depends upon the violation of its zoning scheme, not upon the residency or nonresidency of those parties benefitted, nor whether property outside of the city receives a benefit.” (Id.)

“Although earlier cases discussed zoning violations in terms of nuisance, and justified actions to enforce the zoning regulations by reference to nuisance law (see City of Stockton v. Frisbie Latta (1928) 93 Cal.App. 277, 285-290, and cases cited therein) the courts have more recently interpreted the early cases to stand ‘for the proposition that the violation of a valid zoning ordinance itself constitutes a sufficient showing to permit enforcement.’” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 341. citing City etc. of San Francisco v. Burton (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 749, 757, approved in City of Tiburon v. Northwestern Pac. R.R. Co. (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 160, 178 and City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 388, 401.)

“In view of the ordinance, and the case law cited above, we hold that the city may bring an action to enjoin or otherwise abate the violation of the condition by respondents.” (City of Santa Clara v. Paris (1977) 76 Cal.App.3d 338, 342 citing City and County of San Francisco v. Padilla, supra; see also Cal. Zoning Practice (Cont.Ed.Bar 1969) at 477-481.)