Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Mount Laurel is the term used to describe both a series of New Jersey Supreme Court decisions, as well as the sweeping legal doctrine embodied in those decisions that all municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide for their fair share of the regional need for affordable housing. The decisions, named after the suburban township in southern New Jersey that was the defendant in the initial 1972 lawsuit, have had a profound effect on affordable housing and land use thinking and policy in the United States.

The Mount Laurel Case

As often happens with trailblazing court rulings, the Mount Laurel (1972) decision arose from modest local circumstances, from a case brought by a group of African American families, many of whose ancestors had lived in once-rural Mount Laurel Township since the American Revolution. By the 1960s, the township, easily reached from Philadelphia and Camden, had begun to suburbanize, and local code enforcement efforts in Mount Laurel's Springville section, where most of the African American community lived, pushed out families living in substandard housing. Faced with these pressures, the community asked the township to rezone a small area in Springville for affordable garden apartments so that displaced residents could remain in their community. When local officials refused, the residents turned for help to legal services lawyers in nearby Camden, who brought a lawsuit on their behalf against the township.

Mount Laurel I

In 1971, the attorneys filed the case, known as Southern Burlington County NAACP et al. v. Township of Mount Laurel, on behalf of the Springville residents. In 1972, the trial judge found in favor of the residents and ordered Mount Laurel to adopt a plan to provide affordable housing for the town's poor residents. The township appealed, and in 1975, the New Jersey Supreme Court handed down its first Mount Laurel decision, known as Mount Laurel I.

In that decision, the court set down a new principle of law, that every

municipality must, by its land use regulations, presumptively make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing. More specifically, presumptively it cannot foreclose the opportunity of the classes of people mentioned for low- and moderate-income housing and in its regulations must affirmatively afford that opportunity, at least to the extent of the municipality's fair share of the present and prospective regional need therefore.

The court stressed that zoning was a police power granted by the state; as such, it must serve the general welfare, not only for the residents of the municipality or for the affluent but, as the court pointed out unequivocally, also “it is plain beyond dispute that proper provision of adequate housing for all categories of people is certainly an absolute essential in promotion of the general welfare required in all land use regulation.”

Having set down this legal principle, however, the court remained largely silent on how this far-reaching transformation of local land use practice was to take place. Seemingly confident that Mount Laurel and other New Jersey municipalities would rise to the occasion, the court chose not to go beyond instructing the township to amend its ordinance to comply with the general principles of the doctrine. While that choice was understandable, it meant that any tangible outcomes of the decision would be delayed for nearly a decade.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading