In Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship v. County of Riverside, (2020) 2020 WL 547372, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal held that, where a zoning ordinance, on its face, required both religious and non-religious assemblies to meet “special occasion facility” use standards, there was no violation of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Background
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc et seq. (“RLUIPA”) is a Federal law that prohibits discriminatory or other land use regulations that impose a “substantial burden” on the religious exercise of a person or religious assembly or institution, except where justified by a “compelling governmental interest”, and as long as the government pursues the land use regulation in the least restrictive way possible. Key protections of RLUIPA are provided in the equal terms provision and the nondiscrimination provision. The equal terms provision provides a land use regulation may not treat a religious assembly differently from a non-religious assembly. The nondiscrimination provision prohibits a government from acting with discriminatory intent.
In 1996, Calvary Chapel Bible Fellowship (“Calvary Chapel”) bought a parcel of property in Riverside County (“County”). The church was granted a use permit to build a sanctuary on the property and did so. In 1999, the County amended the zoning code to remove religious assemblies from the list of uses allowed in the Citrus-Vineyard Zone (“Ordinance”) because the County found that the C/V Zone is “intended to ‘encourage agricultural cultivation, vineyards, and wineries that would preserve the rural lifestyle, wine-making atmosphere and long term viability of the wine-industry.”.
Unware of the rezone, the church continued to operate as a legal, non-conforming use and in 2009 bought a vacant neighboring parcel within the same C/V zone to expand its existing uses. Calvary Chapel wanted to build a larger sanctuary, a special occasion facility, an open-air wedding venue, administration building, and single-family residence—none of which met the purpose and intent or expressly stated allowable uses within the C/V Zone
While their building plan was pending environmental review, Calvary Chapel challenged the Ordinance on its face, alleging that it violated RLUIPA’s equal terms provision for allowing special occasion facilities but non-religious assemblies. In short, Calvary Chapel alleged no use in the zone corresponded to its proposed use. The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgement in favor of the County.
Calvary Chapel appealed the judgement and included an additional allegation that the Ordinance violated RLUIPA’s nondiscrimination provision.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Holding
The Court of Appeal, reviewing the Chapel’s challenge anew, affirmed the lower court’s ruling and held that the Ordinance treats all assemblies within the zone the same, regardless of whether it is a religious or non-religious assembly.
The Court of Appeal found that reading the Ordinance on its face, and not as applied (because that was the specific challenge raised by Chapel), the Ordinance allowed “both [religious and non-religious assemblies]” as long as they met certain, generally applicable requirements of a “special occasion facility.” For example, one such requirement is that, at some point, the facility is rented out in return for compensation. Calvary Chapel alleged that this put the church on unequal footing with other assemblies because it did not charge a fee for attendance. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that “nothing in the text of the Ordinance prevents churches from holding regular worship… in their special occasion facilities.” Thus, “the Ordinance places facilities that do not plan to charge a fee on equal terms, regardless of whether they are religious or secular,” both are required to charge for the use of their space at some time.
Calvary Chapel also alleged that the Ordinance violated the RLUIPA nondiscrimination provision because it was enacted following local, citizen-led anti-church campaigns that pressured the County to change the Ordinance. Since this claim was raised for the first time on appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to consider the issue.
Key Take Away
A land use ordinance may require religious assemblies meet certain use requirements, but only if the ordinance applies equally to religious and non-religious groups and the land use regulation is justified by a “compelling governmental interest” and in the least restrictive way possible.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290