Zoning code affects church property long after your congregation first moved in — and many churches don’t find out how far those restrictions reach until they try to expand, rebuild, or sell. Municipalities establish a General Plan that lays out the overall land use scheme, restricting some areas to particular uses. These governmental actions can’t be arbitrary, capricious, or vague — zoning regulations must be reasonable and bear a rational relationship to the objectives of the city, while taking affirmative measures to provide housing for all. Municipalities are given this authority through state enabling statutes, for the protection of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their citizens.
How Zoning Code Affects Church Property
Zoning doesn’t just say where a church can be built — it governs whether a church can expand, whether it can add a school or preschool, and what happens if the underlying zoning changes after the church is already there. This last scenario is governed by a specific legal concept: nonconforming use.
Legal Nonconforming Use and Zoning Code
A legal nonconforming use is a use of land that violates a present ordinance but was lawful before the ordinance changed. This usage generally runs with the land unless it creates a danger to health or safety, or is discontinued. In other words, provided a church continues to operate, even though the underlying zoning has since changed, the church may remain — but only as long as the basic use stays the same and unchanged. A physical expansion of the facilities, if allowed at all, will usually trigger a requirement to bring the whole property into conformance with current zoning, and other codes may be affected as well. The word “grandfathered” is often used loosely to describe this situation.
Conditional Use Permits and Zoning Code
A conditional use is a use specifically named and authorized by the zoning ordinance, subject to conditions attached by the city. It generally runs with the land until the use is discontinued, or until the conditions of approval are found to have been violated through a formal process. Put simply, it’s a use the zoning ordinance allows in a given district — not because it’s automatically compatible, but because it might cause harm to neighbors if left unconditioned, so the city attaches requirements instead of an outright ban. This is one of the clearest ways zoning code affects church property before a shovel ever hits the ground.
RLUIPA: Federal Protection Against Unfair Zoning
Congress found that houses of worship were being disproportionately affected by local land use decisions, and that zoning authorities were frequently placing excessive burdens on a congregation’s ability to exercise its faith — burdens that raised real constitutional concerns. In response, Congress enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Its purpose is to protect religious institutions from unduly burdensome or discriminatory land use regulations. RLUIPA generally requires a church to assert and prove that a municipality’s action against it violates the statute — protection isn’t automatic.
RLUIPA prohibits any government agency from imposing or implementing “a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution—(A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
Churches, Residential Zones, and Zoning Code
A California Court of Appeal has upheld a city’s exclusion of churches from single-family residential zones. In Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. City of Porterville, 90 Cal.App.2d 656, 203 P.2d 823 (1949), the court reasoned:
“It is a matter of common knowledge that people in considerable numbers assemble in churches and that parking and traffic problems exist where crowds gather. This would be true particularly in areas limited to single family dwellings. There necessarily is an appreciable amount of noise connected with the conduct of church and youth activities… Such a zoning regulation bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare because it tends to promote and perpetuate the American home and protect its civic and social value.”
Cottonwood Christian Center: A Zoning Dispute Over Eminent Domain
Cottonwood Christian Center is a real-world example of how zoning code affects church property when a city changes its mind. The congregation began to rapidly grow from a 700-seat sanctuary — bussing in members from surrounding areas — to a 4,700-seat sanctuary. To facilitate their needs, the church purchased an eighteen acre property with plans to develop multiple classrooms and a multi-purpose room for youth and other ministries. The proposed center also included a youth activity center, gymnasium, and study rooms for after-school youth programs. The city, however, had other plans and refused to issue the necessary conditional use permit to the church.
The city planned to allow a large retail store on the church’s property and offered to purchase it. When the church rejected that offer, the city began eminent domain proceedings to compel the sale. The church sued in federal court, claiming the city’s actions violated RLUIPA — a claim reported as Cottonwood Christian Center v. Cypress Redevelopment Agency, 218 F.Supp.2d 1203 (C.D. Cal. 2002).
The court found that the city’s refusal to grant the conditional use permit involved a land use regulation or system of land use regulations imposing a substantial burden on the church’s religious exercise. To meet its burden under RLUIPA, the church had to show the regulation substantially burdened its religious beliefs, and the court concluded that requirement was met: “Preventing a church from building a worship site fundamentally inhibits its ability to practice its religion. Churches are central to the religious exercise of most religions. If a congregation could not build a church it could not exist.”
The court also rejected the city’s argument that “revenue generation” — putting a Costco on the church’s property — was a compelling governmental interest, observing that “if revenue generation were a compelling state interest, municipalities could exclude all religious institutions from their cities.”
The lesson for any congregation is straightforward: when zoning code affects church property this way, the dispute doesn’t always end with the city’s decision. RLUIPA gives churches a real, federally protected basis to challenge a zoning denial that substantially burdens their ability to practice their faith — but it has to be raised and proven, not assumed.
Related Articles
Churches and Property Tax Exemptions
First Right of Refusal
Why Use Bushore Real Estate
Church Officer and Director Liability
