This article shall be known as the “Comprehensive Zoning Plan of the City of Los Angeles.”
It is well settled that a municipality may divide land into districts and prescribe regulations governing the uses permitted therein, and that zoning ordinances when reasonable in object and not arbitrary in operation constitute a justifiable exercise of police power, and as intendment is in favor of the validity of such ordinances the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the zoning action.
Lockard v. The City of Los Angeles, 33 Cal. 2d 453.
Clemens v. The City of Los Angeles, 36 Cal.2d 95.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal. App. 2d 348.
Burke v. City of Los Angeles, 68 Cal. App.2d 189.
Ex Parte Quong Wo, 161 Cal 222.
Miller v. Board of Public Works, 95 Cal. 485.
Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 497.
People v. Norton, 108 Cal. App. Supp. 767.
Otis v. City of Los Angeles. 52 Cal. App. 2d 605.
Hadacheck v. Alexander. 169 Cal. 616.
Brown v. City of Los Angeles. 183 Cal. 783, 789.
Ex Parte Hadacheck.165 Cal. 416.
Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Fed. 2d 528.
Kort v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 2d 804.
Acker v. Baldwin, 18 Cal 2d 341.
In re Ruppe, 80 Cal. App. 629.
Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 71 L. Ed. 303.
Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal 2d 332.
The right to use private property may be restricted by an ordinance which follows a reasonable plan even though the use is neither a nuisance per se, nor a menace to health, safety or morals in the district from which it is excluded. A retroactive ordinance which causes substantial injury to a business which is not a nuisance would be unreasonable and unjustifiable.
People v. Nixon, CR A 2201.
Comprehensive Zoning is a legitimate exercise of the police power and city ordinances prohibiting the production of oil in designated zones are valid if reasonable and not arbitrary.
Beverly Oil Company v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal. 2nd 552.
Any zoning regulation is a valid exercise of the police power which is necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The police power as evidence in zoning ordinances has a much wider scope than the mere oppression of offensive users of property. Such regulations do not constitute a taking of property for which compensations must be made.
Miller v. Board of Public Works. 195 Cal. 482.
It is not a ground of invalidity of a zoning ordinance that a business is lawful, innocent, inoffensive and dignified, for if restrictions on business could be invalidated on that ground there could be no such thing as comprehensive city planning.
Kort v. City of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. App. 2nd, 804, 809.
A master plan or some over-all plan contemplated by a city in the development and building up of a subdivision need not be approved and adopted before authority vests in relation to conditions imposed by the city on a subdivider, where a Charter contemplates that portion of the plan may be adopted.
Ayers v. City of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d 31.