Not a member but want to buy a copy? You'll need to create a free My APA account to purchase. Create account
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) cautions local governments not to "substantially burden" a religious land-use applicant's right to free exercise, but provides little guidance about what actions might constitute a substantial burden. Congress failed to define "substantial burden."
The religious land-use applicant has the initial burden of demonstrating that a land-use decision or regulation is a "substantial burden," but the local government then has an opportunity to explain what compelling governmental interest exists and how the local government used the least restrictive means. Monetary judgments and settlements can be astronomical and should be a cautionary note for local governments.
This issue of Zoning Practice takes a look recent RLUIPA cases with an eye toward drawing conclusions about what types of zoning requirements generally pass the substantial burden test.
About the Author