City Zoning Restriction For Small Stores Violates Equal Protection
Challenging land use regulations on equal protection grounds is extremely difficult. Land use restrictions are typically subject to the most deferential standard of court review, the "rational basis" test. For that reason, it is very notable when an equal protection challenge succeeds. In Hernandez v.City of Hanford, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of California invalidated a commercial zoning restriction as a violation of equal protection.
In Hanford, the owner of a small retail store successfully challenged a zoning regulation barring the sale of furniture in a commercial zone, except for certain large size stores. The court observed ". . .the disparate treatment of these similarly situated retailers based on square footage is not rationally related to the purpose behind the ordinance and is unconstitutional as a violation of equal protection." The Court of Appeals looked beyond the stated rationalization for the legislation to examine its real world impact. As the United States Supreme Court observed in Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, (U.S. 1992), without meaningful scrutiny by courts, which looks beyond whether there is a stated justification for the legislation, the rational basis test "amounts to a test of whether the legislature has a stupid staff." It is encouraging that this Court did not defer to unsubstantiated conclusions of city staff.