Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Can city ordinances violate property rights?
My city code enforcement officer told me the following:
1. The city can require me to submit a detailed landscaping plan for my property that they can either approve or disapprove of.
2. I cannot remove trees, even if it is threatening my house, without their permission and a permit for which I must pay a fee even though I planted the tree in the first place.
3. Their code enforcement officer can enter and inspect my property at any time without my permission or consent.
Don't I have any rights as a property owner? And if my financial situation prevents me from doing expensive landscaping, why do they have the right to rule on that?
Thanks.
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Can city ordinances violate property rights?
From the earliest times, even a fee simple absolute ownership of property was subject to the power of the king to govern. Today, our federal, state, county and city governments take the role of the king. Private property rights are, and always have been, subject to the right of the sovereign to make the rules for its use.
Zoning laws are one embodiment of the power of the sovereign. As applied to your specific concerns, I would say:
(1) Cities probably do have the power to approve or disapprove landscaping plans. There would be some Constitutional limits on a city's use of that power. Nevertheless, if the approval power is used even-handedly and in furtherance of a valid municipal objective, the ordinance requiring approval and its enforcement probably do not violate your Constitutional property rights or other guaranteed freedoms.
2) This is a specific instance of use of the general powers discussed above, and my answer is the same. The city probably has the right to require a permit for removal of a tree, but if the city used that power unfairly, for an improper purpose, or discriminatorily, either the enforcement practice or the ordinance itself could be attacked in court on Constitutional grounds.
3) The U.S. Constitution (4th Amendment) assures citizens the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. There is a huge body of decided case law interpreting the 4th Amendment, guiding police, judges, etc. as to what searches and seizures are permissible and which are not; when a warrant is required and when a warrantless search is permissible. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled several times on your issue, what are called 'administrative searches and seizures,' by building inspectors, health inspectors, fire marshals, etc. Generally, such inspectors can knock and ask permission to inspect. If the property owner or tenant refuses permission, the inspector has to get a warrant. The inspector can also get a warrant in the first place. Such warrants are issued by judges or magistrates, and require the inspector to make an application showing some justification for the warrant.
Whether a warrant would be issued based upon a suspicion that you were planting petunias without an approved plan is a question I can't answer.
In summary, cities do have the powers you complain of, but the powers are not without limits.