Plaintiff purchased undeveloped land located in defendant municipality, intending to construct dwelling houses thereon. At the time of plaintiff's purchase, the land was zoned for industrial use, but the applicable ordinance did permit use of the land for residential as well as industrial purposes. Defendant municipality, a town of about 9,000 persons, had experienced a minimum of industrial growth and the possibility of future industrial development was slight. Shortly after the plaintiff had made his purchase, defendant municipality amended the applicable zoning ordinance to prohibit the use of plaintiff's land for residential purposes. However, the ordinance did permit the presence of hotels, hospitals, schools and public playgrounds in the area zoned industrial. The lower court enjoined enforcement of the amended ordinance as it applied to the plaintiff's land. On appeal, held, affirmed. A zoning law which prohibits construction of dwelling houses in an area zoned as industrial may be valid, but as applied to an area lacking any substantial present or potential industry the ordinance is unreasonable and confiscatory and therefore void. Corthouts v. Town of Newington, (Conn. 1953) 99 A (2d) 112.
Judson M. Werbelow S.Ed.,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS-ZONING-VALIDITY OF ORDINANCES EXCLUDING RESIDENCES FROM INDUSTRIAL AREAS,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol52/iss6/19