The purpose of this article is to consolidate and coordinate all existing zoning regulations and provisions into one comprehensive zoning plan in order to designate, regulate and restrict the location and use of buildings, structures and land, for agriculture, residence, commerce, trade, industry or other purposes; to regulate and limit the height, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures hereafter erected or altered to regulate and determine the size of yards and other open spaces and to regulate and limit the density of population; and for said purposes to divide the City into zones of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out these regulations and provide for their enforcement. Further, such regulations are deemed necessary in order to encourage the most appropriate use of land; to conserve and stabilize the value of property; to provide adequate open spaces for light and air, and to prevent and fight fires; to prevent undue concentration of population; to lessen congestion on streets; to facilitate adequate provisions for community utilities and facilities such as transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; and to promote health, safety, and the general welfare all in accordance with the comprehensive plan.
The zoning regulations are not contracts by the City and may therefore be modified by the latter. Property is always held subject to the valid exercise of the police power. The theory of vested rights relates only to such rights as an owner of property may possess not to have their property rezoned after the owner of the property has started construction thereon or was making a use thereof permitted by law, when such obstruction or use does not constitute a nuisance and the adoption of the zoning ordinance does not give a property owner any vested rights.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Cal. App. 2d 348 at 365.
No person has a vested right in the exercise of the police power. An exercise of the same may not be limited by a prior contract or restricted covenants.
Wheeler v. Gregg, 90 Ca. App. 2d 348, 367.
Acker v. Baldwin, 18 Cal. 2d 341.
When a building is partly in one zone and partly in another, a person who conducts a prohibited business in the portion of such building where such business is prohibited, held, guilty of violation of the zoning ordinance, even though conduct of such business in other part of building would have been lawful.
People v. Nixon CR A 2201.
The use of a lot restricted to non-business uses as place where automobiles stood on concrete slab while being serviced from pump located on lot zoned for business, held to be a use of restricted lot for business purposes in violation of zoning ordinance.
People v. Myers, CR A550.
An ordinance which forbids the erection and maintenance of a dwelling house except where such dwelling has adequate and permanent access to a permanent or public street is valid.
Mitchell v. Morris, 94 Cal. App. 2d 446.
It is not an unlawful exercise of police power to amend a zoning ordinance and extend the limits of an area in which conduct of a certain business is prohibited when no construction or building has been started.
Dobbins v. City of Los Angeles. 139 Cal. 179.
Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 F.2d 528.
A zoning ordinance is not void or discriminatory because there is a territory outside the district in which a business subject to the police power is permitted, exactly similar to that inside the district where it is prohibited.
Brown v. City of Los Angeles, 183 Cal. 783.
Where three separately numbered lots are enclosed with a fence and occupied and used as a single parcel, house being on one lot and horses were kept on other lot, held, the entire premises were used for a single family residence with customary outbuildings within meaning of county ordinance.
People v. Smith, CK A 1696.
Where zone boundary line runs through a building, held, fact that defendant was uncertain as to where such line ran is not a defense to charge of conducting business in a forbidden zone.
People v. Nixon, CR A 2201.
Zoning ordinances, when reasonable in object and not arbitrary in operation, constitute a justifiable exercise of the police power, and such power extends to the regulation of uses of property which do not actually amount to nuisances.
Jones v. City Of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. 304
Where a vendor of property conceals the fact that a violation of zoning regulations exists thereon, the purchaser is not bound by constructive notice of the applicable zoning ordinance, and said vendor’s failure to disclose such violation constitutes actual fraud.
Barder v. McClung, 93 Cal. App. 2d 692.
Zoning Ordinances which have been held invalid fall roughly into four categories: 1. Where the zoning ordinance attempts to exclude and prohibit existing and established uses or businesses that are not nuisances. 2. Where restrictions create a monopoly. 3. Where the use of adjacent property renders the land entirely unsuited to or unusable for the only purpose permitted by the ordinance. 4. Where a small parcel is restricted and given less rights than surrounding property, as where a lot in the center of a business district is limited to use for residential purposes, thereby creating an “island” in the middle of a larger area devoted to other uses.
Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino, 29 Cal. 2d 332,340.
The terms “buildable area” and “building site”, Article 1, Section 3(11) of the City Charter of Los Angeles are defined to include a “Designated Building Site” as that term is defined in and provided for by Section 2 of uncodified Ordinance 159,802, Eff. 6/9/85.