Walnut Acres Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles CA2/8

Good Law
185 Cal. Rptr. 3d 871·2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 317·235 Cal. App. 4th 1303·2015 WL 1730417
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2015B254636California4,931 words

Opinion

Opinion

Flier, J.

“Unnecessary hardship” is a term of art generally used in the context of evaluating a zoning variance. For example, under the Los Angeles Municipal Code, no variance may be granted unless “ ‘the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations ....’” (West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506, 1514, fn. 4 [ 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 360 ].) Although the test includes both “practical difficulties” and “unnecessary hardships,” the focus should be on “unnecessary hardships” and not “practical difficulties,” which is a lesser standard. (Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 916, 925 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 178 ]; Zakessian v. City of Sausalito (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 794, 799 [ 105 Cal.Rptr. 105 ].)

Just as with variances, Los Angeles Municipal Code section 14.3.1, which governs the permitting process for eldercare facilities, provides that approval of the eldercare facility is warranted only if the zoning administrator finds “that the strict application of the land use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.