Title: Zoning Laws | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Headings: The First Amendment Encyclopedia
The First Amendment Encyclopedia
Zoning Laws
By David Schultz (Updated September 2017 by David L. Hudson Jr.)
Burdensome, arbitrary and discriminatory zoning laws have been struck down
First Amendment challenges to zoning often deal with adult entertainment
Court has upheld zoning laws under secondary effects doctrine
Court has upheld zoning laws meant to regulate neighborhood activity

Content: However, in decisions such as Sable Communications of California v. Federal Communications Commission (1989) the Court stated that “Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is protected by the First Amendment,” and government cannot totally restrict efforts to access this type of speech or communication. Thus, in cases such as Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981) the Supreme Court ruled that while zoning may create adult zones or limit the placement of adult entertainment businesses within a community, the community may not zone them out completely or restrict them to small and highly inaccessible areas. Court has upheld zoning laws under secondary effects doctrine
While zoning may not target non-obscene protected speech activities, the Supreme Court has given communities some power to utilize land use laws to regulate adult businesses under the secondary effects doctrine. In Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976), a divided Supreme Court upheld a city zoning ordinance that prohibited the operation of any “adult” movie theater, bookstore, and similar establishments within 1,000 feet of any other such establishment or within 500 feet of a residential area. The majority ruled that such a zoning ordinance was a valid time, place and manner regulation because the speech in question enjoyed lesser First Amendment protection and because the law did not totally ban these establishments from the community. The Court further developed this doctrine in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986), ruling that zoning ordinances that seek to regulate the secondary effects of adult entertainment, such as increased crime or decreased property values, do not violate the First Amendment. In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991), the Court upheld an ordinance (not a zoning law) that required nude dancers to wear pasties or g-strings. Here the Court, relying on the logic of Young and Renton, asserted that totally nude dancing was only marginally protected by the First Amendment and therefore could be regulated. The Court continued its use of the secondary-effects doctrine in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (2002). The case concerned a challenge to a ban on multiple-use adult businesses in the same building.