ABSTRACT
The substantive component of the due process clause tests the governmental purposes implemented by land use regulations, such as zoning ordinances. The state courts generally apply substantive due process requirements more rigorously than the federal courts. The state courts may reverse the presumption in land use cases when a fundamental constitutional interest is affected. A federal court would probably apply the presumption of constitutionality and uphold the ten-acre lot restriction. A state court may find that the restriction violates substantive due process. Both a federal and a state court would probably hold that the code advances legitimate aesthetic purposes because it requires new dwellings to conform with existing dwellings in the area. The states and state courts can sometimes insulate themselves from being second-guessed by the federal courts by relying wholly on state provisions and their state constitutions. The landowner is entitled to some protection at the federal level that was not as clear prior to First English or Nollan.
