Krause v. City of Royal Oak – Case Brief
Krause v. City of Royal Oak, 11 Mich. App. 183, 160 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. App. 1968).
Facts: Kraus (P) owned 3.5 acres of land zoned for single family use. Krause applied to the City of Royal Oak (D) numerous times for a zoning change so that it could be used for multiple-family housing and was refused. P sued to prevent D from enforcing the current zoning on P’s property and the trial court entered judgment for P, arguing that refusing to grant P’s requests for a zoning change constituted an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of D’s police power. D appealed.
Issues: 1) What is required in order for a zoning ordinance to be valid? 2) In order to attack a zoning ordinance successfully, what is the burden of the attacking party?
Holding and Rule: 1) In order to be valid, a zoning ordinance must bear a direct and substantial relation to the objectives of police power, the preservation of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community as a whole. 2) In order to attack a zoning ordinance successfully, the attacking party has the burden of establishing affirmatively that the ordinance has no real or substantial relation to public health, morals, safety, or general welfare.
Each ordinance is presumed valid and each case must be determined on its own facts and circumstances. In order for the courts to find action of the legislative body invalid, more than a debatable question is required.
P sought to be free of the restriction that the land be used only for single-residential use so that he could take advantage of the increased value of the property if it could be used for multiple-unit housing.
The court held that the mere fact that land may have a greater value if used in a manner different from that for which it is zoned is not a sufficient basis for holding the ordinance invalid, although it can be considered with other elements affecting the situation.
Disposition: Reversed.