Ninth Circuit Upholds City of Costa Mesa’s Ordinance Requiring Distance Separation for Sober Living Homes

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the City of Costa Mesa’s ordinances that regulate locations for sober living facilities. In The Ohio House LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, the Court reviewed the City’s separation ordinance designed to prevent the “clustering” of sober living homes in a residential area. While imposing this geographic distancing requirement the City’s zoning ordinances also gave certain benefits to such homes in residential areas. The operator of one such group of homes, The Ohio House LLC, sued the City, claiming that the ordinance violated the federal Fair Housing Act, California’s Fair Housing & Employment Act (FEHA), and California zoning laws.

The Ninth Circuit reviewed a trial court’s combined rulings on a partial summary judgment and a jury trial and affirmed those rulings in favor of the City. Justice Forrest, writing for the majority, noted that although the FHA and FEHA both prohibit discriminatory treatment against a protected class (such as recovering addicts who qualify as disabled) in this case the City’s ordinances benefitted these disabled individuals:

“The City’s permitting and separation requirements applicable to group homes located in R1 zones impose a burden but also give facilities housing the disabled an avenue for operating in these zones that is unavailable under any circumstances to similar group-living dwellings housing the nondisabled. In this context, the burden imposed is connected to a benefit.” (Slip Op. at 23-24).

This decision is a major victory for a number of cities in California and elsewhere that have struggled with continuous challenges to ordinances that limit the congregation of sober living facilities in one residential area. Aleshire & Wynder of counsel Norman A. Dupont was one of the authors of an amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities in support of the City of Costa Mesa.