Anderson v. City of La Mesa

California Court of Appeal May 1, 1981 No. Civ. 22911Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A property owner who completes construction in good faith reliance on a government-issued building permit acquires a vested right, and the government may be estopped from enforcing a conflicting zoning ordinance when the resulting injustice outweighs the public interest.

Issues

Whether the trial court properly exercised its independent judgment in reviewing the denial of a zoning variance.
Whether the trial court properly applied the doctrine of estoppel against the City.
Whether the trial court had sufficient evidence to rule on the petition for a writ of mandate.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Where “a property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liabilities in good faith reliance upon a permit issued by the government, he acquires a vested right to complete construction in accordance with the terms of the permit.””

“A government entity may be estopped, however, where, as here, “the injustice which would result from a failure to uphold an estoppel is of sufficient dimension to justify any effect upon public interest or policy which would result from the raising of an estoppel.””

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

The City of La Mesa (City) appeals a judgment granting Leona Anderson’s petition for a peremptory writ of mandate.

The City issued Anderson a building permit under the City’s standard zoning ordinances requiring single family dwellings be set back at least five feet from the side lot lines. As allowed under the permit, one wall of Anderson’s house was built about seven feet from the side lot line. During construction the City inspected the house six times. Upon completing the house Anderson applied for final inspection, but the City claimed a specific plan ordinance required her house be set back at least 10 feet from the side lot lines. The City did not grant Anderson a variance and would not issue her a permanent occupancy permit unless she removed the portion of her house within 10 feet of the side lot line.

Anderson petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate. The court found Anderson had a vested right in having her home remain

[660]

where built because she relied in good faith on the building permit the City issued. The court found no substantial evidence a variance for Anderson’s seven-foot setback would harm anyone, while remodeling the house would cost Anderson more than $6,000. Finding the City abused its discretion, the court ordered the City to issue Anderson a variance and an occupancy permit. The City appeals the judgment.

The City unmeritoriously contends the court improperly granted relief because Anderson did not submit to the court the full record of the administrative hearing before the city council or other evidence sufficient to support the court’s decision. Both parties attached to their pleadings portions of the administrative record as permitted by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, subdivision (a). The City’s answer admitted most of the significant facts. The court had adequate evidence before it to rule on Anderson’s petition.

The City contends the court erred in exercising its independent judgment upon the evidence because denying a zoning variance did not affect any fundamental right vested in Anderson. The court must exercise its independent judgment where an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right

Anderson v. City of La Mesa

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief