ABSTRACT
The application of landmark preservation ordinances to houses of worship has led to several wellpublicized court cases and legislative battles in which religious institutions claimed that the financial burdens of landmark designation, and the degree to which designation infringes on religious autonomy and practice, are so substantial as to violate federal and/or state constitutional protections for religious and property rights. This paper frrst examines the data available on conflict between houses of worship and landmark preservation and concludes that, while such conflict is relatively rare, the publicity given to vocal opponents of landmark designation of houses of worship has created the misleading impression of pervasive conflict between religious institutions and landmark laws. The paper next considers the caselaw and commentary dealing with the conflict between houses of worship and landmark preservation in the context of the larger scholarly debate on the first amendment and concludes that there is neither a need nor a constitutional necessity for the outright exemption of houses of worship from landmark designation. The paper suggests that, by focusing more closely on whether designation truly burdens core religious values, both courts and legislatures may limit the protection afforded to houses of worship, and thereby achieve an appropriate constitutional accommodation between governmental interests and religion.
