Chapter 786: ) which provides that no tenement house of third class

construction shall be erected nearer than 5 feet to adjoining lot line; but it may be constructed to the lot line if protected by a fire wall. A provision found in several codes limits the size only of tenement houses and apartment houses by specifying the proportion of lot which may be built upon, varying in the case of a corner lot from 75 per cent to 95 per cent, and in the case of an interior lot from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. The building code of Baltimore provides that there shall not be less than 20 feet between frame buildings, and no other building of any kind shall be built within 20 feet of any existing frame building on the next lot.

A bill presented to the legislature of the state of Washington in 1911[130] proposed a considerable extension of the right to regulate the use of private property by requiring that in every newly developed area containing five acres or more there should be a reservation of 10 per cent of the land for public open space, after deducting such land as would be required for street purposes. It is clear that a most liberal interpretation of the police power would not justify a regulation which in reality amounts to a taking of private property without compensation.

That the courts will not sanction any and every legislative regulation is clear in several decisions in which the validity of ordinances specifying the degree of intensity with which property should be used have been successfully attacked. The supreme court of California in 1910, in the case of Wilson _et al._ _vs._ City of Alhambra, 158 Cal. 430, enjoined the enforcing of an ordinance which compelled the owner of six acres of land to lay out a street over his land not less than 50 feet wide. The street in this case was an extension of an existing street which was only 40 feet wide. The court held merely that to require an owner to build a street wider than many of the existing streets in the town was an unreasonable exercise of the police power.

2. DIFFERENTIATED ZONES OF HEIGHT LIMITATION

A most important question to the city planner is to what extent American municipalities may, in the exercise of the police power, copy regulations common in German cities and prescribe different building regulations for different districts of a city. The principle is not new in the United States. Many cities have at least two building districts from one of which non-fireproof buildings are excluded. The constitutionality of fire zone ordinances is universally upheld.

The building regulations in the city of Köln are taken as illustrating the German system, because they are simple compared with the regulations in some other German cities. The city is divided into four building districts, the first of which comprises the area inside the old city walls and contains the central business district. In this district buildings may have four stories and a height of 66½ feet, and may occupy 75 per cent of an inner lot and 80 per cent of a corner lot. The second district is made up of the more closely built suburbs of urban character, and here buildings may have not more than three stories, a height of not more than 52½ feet, and may occupy 75 per cent of the lot if the building does not exceed 26 feet in height, but only 65 per cent otherwise. In the third district the buildings are limited to two stories, a height of 38 feet, and may occupy 65 per cent of the lot if they do not exceed 20 feet in height, and only 50 per cent otherwise. The fourth district is devoted to detached buildings or villas of two stories and 52½ feet in height. Only 40 per cent of the site may be covered by buildings, or 50 per cent if the site is a corner lot. In this district also there must be at least 33 feet between buildings and 16½ feet from the boundary of the lots to the buildings. Reference to the map of Köln will show that the districts have been so located that just outside the old walls of the city is a broad band of open villa buildings, and that the more closely built suburban districts are also separated by the same open style of construction.

An approach to the German system is found in Boston and in Washington. The Massachusetts commission on height of buildings authorized under chapter 333 of the statutes of 1904, was empowered merely to divide the city of Boston into districts of two classes in such manner that the parts of the city in which the greater part of the buildings were used for business or commercial purposes should be included in District A and the rest of the city in District B. The statute itself prescribed the limit of 125 feet for buildings in District A and further provided that in District B no buildings should be over 80 feet. Under a later act, chapter 383 of the statutes of 1905, the commission was empowered to designate that part of District B where buildings exceeding 80 feet and not exceeding 100 feet could be erected; and there was a further provision in this act which limited the height of buildings in certain designated districts to 70 feet. The commission’s first report fixed the boundaries of District A, and the second report regulated the height of buildings in District B in accordance with the width of the street and the width of the building. On all streets over 64 feet wide the buildings could be erected to one and one-half times the width of the street up to 100 feet, provided that their height did not exceed twice their narrowest width.

Boston’s several zones are more highly differentiated than even those of Köln, but the Köln regulations are much more severe than the most drastic of the Boston provisions. Thus Boston has a narrowly limited business zone and several other zones differing, not in accordance with the distance from the business center, but in accordance with the width of the street and width of the buildings. The commission’s report and the decisions of both the state and federal courts sustaining it are unique in the United States. The court held that in the exercise of the police power the legislature could determine an absolute height limitation for all buildings in the city, and could delegate to a commission the right to fix the boundaries of building districts and to establish varying height limitations in one of these districts.[131]

This decision has been generally accepted as of great importance in working out some of the details of city planning. There is not involved in it the question of the amount of space which can be occupied by buildings in the different building districts, and for this reason the decision is not a complete precedent for the introduction of the zoning system of Germany in the United States, but it is likely that the Massachusetts court would uphold an ordinance framed to include all the details of the Köln system.

If the legislature can establish two building districts it certainly can establish three or even four. If its authority to delegate to a commission power to regulate the height of buildings in each district is sustained by the courts on the ground that it is a reasonable way of securing an adequate amount of light and air, it should follow that the power to regulate the amount of space that each building may occupy in a horizontal direction can also be delegated. Building codes prescribe the distance between buildings or the open space which must attach to each building, and this regulation is sanctioned by the decisions. It is as logical to provide a larger proportion of open space in districts where the demand for land is less as it is to provide less height for buildings in such districts. An ordinance which prescribes for different building districts varying amounts of land which may be occupied, as well as varying heights of buildings, is much more calculated to lessen the fire risk and to safeguard the health of the community than one which is operative only in the area of greatest land values and most congested occupancy. The burden is on the private owner to show that the legislative act is unreasonable. That the courts will be slow to declare unreasonable the legislative finding has been established in numerous decisions, and applying this test of reasonableness to an ordinance which would include the principle of the zone system of Köln it is difficult to see how it could be successfully questioned.

It is quite another question whether it would be expedient to introduce such an ordinance. Local conditions might be such that property owners would be right in refusing to entrust so important a question to a municipal administration or to a commission appointed by that administration. In purchasing lots they may cheerfully submit to the restrictions imposed by a land company, no matter how much their rights are curtailed. They may agree to set back their buildings 20 feet from the line of their property; they may agree to build nothing on the land except a dwelling house of certain value and to have the rest of it set out in gardens, and even to submit the position and design of their houses, hedges, fences, and gates for approval to a small committee representing the vendors of the tract. Such restrictions, when drawn to meet the conditions of the real estate market, attract buyers rather than repel them, because these restrictions upon the liberty of individual lot owners protect each against the danger of certain injurious actions by any neighbors. Yet a suggestion of control from municipal authorities might raise a strong protest. It is an interesting speculation whether some form of district building regulations subject to a referendum within each district will not meet American conditions successfully.

LIMITATIONS ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE OFFENSIVE USE OF LAND MAY BE CARRIED

The right of the municipality in any given case to suppress uses of land depends on the language of its charter, but under a universal charter provision a municipality may protect the general welfare of its people, and many uses of land are enjoined under this general power.

1. USES OF LAND WHICH IMPAIR THE FREE USE OF A PUBLIC HIGHWAY

Encroachments on the highway of signs, awnings, posts, porches, stoops, stands, and so forth, are generally included among those offensive uses of land which are prohibited in the exercise of the police power. If their use obstructs the street or diminishes the space available for walking, or impedes traffic, they may be abated or indicted as nuisances, and it is not necessary that the comfort of the public should be interfered with materially.[132]

But the right of suppression is as well put on other grounds. The municipality either owns the land in the highway or possesses an easement in the land for highway purposes, and can prohibit by virtue of this ownership any use inconsistent with those purposes. The case of the Fifth Avenue Coach Co. _vs._ City of New York, 111 N. Y. Supp. 759, is in point.[133] The action was brought by the plaintiff coach company to enjoin New York City from interfering with advertising signs displayed on the outside of their auto stages which travel on Fifth Avenue. The court denied the injunction on the ground that the plaintiff did not show a clear right to warrant the interference of the court, since the ordinance of the city under which the advertising of the plaintiff company was prohibited was a reasonable regulation of the use of the street and did not operate to impair the plaintiff’s franchise. In discussing the nature of the plaintiff’s advertising business, however, the court said:

“It is along the entrance to parks and along the parks themselves preserved to attract lovers of nature and the beautiful that these unnatural and inartistic moving picture signs are displayed. But out of place, disagreeable and offensive though they are both to the civic pride and esthetic taste, and although the tendency of equitable jurisprudence is to extend its jurisdiction to include this situation, the fact remains that no authority now exists which will justify the legal conclusion that the plaintiff’s signs now constitute a nuisance.”

The decision shows a tendency to give increasing regard to esthetic considerations, since it holds the ordinance a reasonable street regulation. In the same way, without resorting to the police power, the municipality may regulate the use of streets for poles and wires, and may compel the placing of wires underground as a condition of the franchise.

2. USES OF LAND WHICH CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE

A use of land which is inherently unlawful and unprofitable and dangerous to the safety and health or offensive to the morals of a community may be treated as a nuisance, _per se_. Rotten or decayed food or meat, infected bedding or clothing, mad dogs, animals affected with contagious diseases, and imminently dangerous structures, are conspicuous instances of nuisances _per se_. Such conditions may be summarily abated without previous notice. A use of land which does not in itself constitute a nuisance, but may become so by reason of its locality or the conditions surrounding its maintenance, may be prohibited altogether or confined to certain parts of a municipality.

Certain occupations are so generally recognized as belonging to the objectionable class, either because of the odors or noises which are inseparable from them, although conducted in the most careful manner, that they are specifically named in municipal charters as nuisances which the municipality may abate. Thus, slaughter houses, glue factories, soap factories, canning factories, smelting works, rendering establishments, stables, and fertilizer factories are generally included in this class.[134] Some of these ordinances have been tested by the courts and found to be a reasonable exercise of the police power:

Rendering establishments: Grand Rapids _vs._ Weiden, 97 Mich. 82
Meigs _vs._ Lister, 23 N. J. Eq. 199
Slaughterhouses: Harmison _et al._ _vs._ City of Lewiston,
46 Ill. App. 164
Ex parte Heilbron, 65 Cal. 609
Beiling _vs._ City of Evanston, 144
Ind. 644
Smelting works: Appeal of Pa. Lead Co., 96 Pa. 116
Stables: Shiras _vs._ Olinger, 50 Ia. 571
Fertilizer factories: Evans _vs._ Fertilizer Co., 160 Pa. 209
The emission of dense smoke: People _vs._ Lewis, 86 Mich. 273
Atlantic City _vs._ France, 74 N. J.
Law 389
Harmon _vs._ Chicago, 110 Ill. 400

Other courts have come to different conclusions with the same or very similar ordinances applied under different conditions, the courts holding that a declaration by municipal authorities that an occupation is a nuisance does not make it so in fact:

Slaughter houses: Wreford _vs._ People, 14 Mich. 41
Stables: Phillips _vs._ City of Denver, 19
Col. 179
The emission of dense smoke: St. Louis _vs._ Heitzeberg Packing Co.,
141 Mo. 375
St. Paul _vs._ Gilfillan, 36 Minn. 298

3. DIFFERENTIATED DISTRICT REGULATIONS

Legislation in Massachusetts gives a further right by authorizing boards of health of cities or towns “to assign certain places for the exercise of any trade or employment which is a nuisance or hurtful to the inhabitants, injurious to their estates, dangerous to the public health, or is attended by noisome and injurious odors.” They may also prohibit “the exercise thereof with the limits of the city or town or in places not so assigned.”[135]

It does not seem to have been the practice of Massachusetts boards of health to exercise the right of assigning offensive occupations to certain parts of the city, and therefore the question of the right of the community to impair the value of private property by assigning objectionable occupations to certain districts has not been tested. The practical answer to this objection to segregating offensive occupations within defined limits is that they would be located only in those portions of the city where the value of the land or the character of occupation showed that legal actions by property owners included in the district would be unlikely, and, if brought, would be either dismissed or a nominal amount of damages be awarded.

Los Angeles has largely applied the principle of separating industrial districts from residential districts. By an ordinance adopted in 1909 seven industrial districts were established in the city, and by an ordinance of the next year all the rest of the city, with unimportant exceptions, was declared to be a residential district. The ordinance further provides that industrial occupations may be permitted in certain excepted portions of the residence district, and the right is reserved to except other portions as conditions warrant. It is made unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation “to erect, establish, maintain or carry on within the residential district described in section 1 of the ordinance any stone crusher, rolling mill, carpet beating establishment, fireworks factory, soap factory, or any other works or factory where power other than animal power is used to operate, or in the operation of the same, or any hay barn, wood yard, lumber yard, public laundry or wash house.”

The ordinance was tested in the case of Ex Parte Quong Wo.[136] The petitioner, Quong Wo, who had been convicted and imprisoned for carrying on a public laundry and wash house in a residence district, sought to be discharged from custody. The court dismissed the application for a writ of habeas corpus, finding that it was within the lawful exercise of the police power to confine the business of operating a public laundry or wash house within defined limits. The following language of the decision is particularly in point:

“There can be no question that the power to regulate the carrying on of certain lawful occupations in a city includes the power to confine the carrying on of the same to certain limits whenever such restriction may reasonably be found necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists.... It is primarily for the legislative body clothed with this power to determine when such regulations are essential, and its determination in this regard, in view of its better knowledge of all the circumstances and the presumption that it is acting with a due regard for the rights of all parties will not be disturbed in the courts, unless it can plainly be seen that the regulation has no relation to the ends above stated, but is a clear invasion of personal or property rights under the guise of police regulation.”

This decision was reviewed and upheld in the case of Montgomery’s application for a writ of habeas corpus, the only difference in the cases being that the petitioner in the latter case was imprisoned for carrying on or maintaining a lumber yard within the residence district.[137] The contention was made by Montgomery that a lumber yard was not one of those specific occupations which could be regulated under the exercise of the police power since it was not enumerated in the charter of the city. The court found specifically that if the ordinance could be upheld under the general police power of the city, it would not fall merely because the city had specific authority under its charter to suppress certain other kinds of business.

A similar ordinance has been proposed for the city of St. Paul:[138]

Section 2. It shall be unlawful to establish or maintain within said district any carpet beating establishment, stone crusher, rolling or planing mill, public laundry, fireworks, soap or cigar factory, machine shop, slaughter house or rendering works, brewery, distillery, tanning, furrier or canning plants, or any hospital or sanitarium, or asylum for defectives, or any establishment, works or factory which by reason of noise, offensive smell or vapor, or unsanitary effect, may be unhealthy or disturbing or injurious to persons or property within said district.