Editing Zoning (section)

===United States===
{{Main article|Zoning in the United States}}

[[File:TallaLandUse.jpg|right|thumb|upright=1.25|Zoning scheme of the center of [[Tallahassee, Florida]], United States]]

Under the [[Police power (United States constitutional law)|police power]] rights, state governments may exercise over private [[real property]]. With this power, special laws and regulations have long been made restricting the places where particular types of business can be carried on. In 1904, [[Los Angeles]] established the nation's first land-use restrictions for a portion of the city.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://urbanla.weebly.com/history-of-planning.html |title=History of Planning |website=Urban Planning: Los Angeles}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://recode.la/sites/default/files/file_attachments/basic_page/OrdNo9774-ResidentialDistricts%28July%2025%201904%29.pdf |title=Ordinance #9774 Residential Districts}}</ref> [[New York City]] adopted the [[1916 Zoning Resolution|first zoning regulations]] to apply city-wide in 1916.

The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in the 1926 case [[Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co.]] Among large populated cities in the United States, [[Houston]] is unique in having no zoning [[local ordinance|ordinances]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4475351|title=Houston Chronicle, 12-10, 2007}}</ref> The city instead has a proliferation of private [[deed restriction]]s<ref name="Houston Landing" /> and retains government regulations like minimum lot size and setbacks.<ref name="Planetizen">{{cite web |url=https://www.planetizen.com/node/109 |title=Zoning Without Zoning |website=Planetizen - Urban Planning News, Jobs, and Education}}</ref> 

====Scale====
Early zoning practices were subtle and often debated. Some claim the practices started in the 1920s<ref name="Rothwell2010">Rothwell, Jonathan T. and Massey, Douglas S. (2010) "Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas" Social Science Quarterly. Volume 91, Issue 5, pp.1123-1141</ref> while others suggest the birth of zoning occurred in New York in 1916.<ref>Natoli, Salvatore J. (1971) "Zoning and the Development of Urban Land Use Patterns" Economic Geography. Volume 47, Number 2, pp. 171-184</ref> Both of these examples for the start of zoning, however, were urban cases. Zoning becomes an increasing legal force as it continues to expand in its geographical range through its introduction in other urban centres and use in larger political and geographical boundaries. Regional zoning was the next step in increased geographical size of areas under zoning laws.<ref name="Whitnall">Whitnall, Gordon (1931) "History of Zoning" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Volume 155, Part 2, pp.1-14</ref> A major difference between urban zoning and regional zoning was that "regional areas consequently seldom bear direct relationship to arbitrary political boundaries".<ref name="Whitnall" /> This form of zoning also included rural areas which was counter-intuitive to the theory that zoning was a result of population density.<ref name="Whitnall" /> Finally, zoning also expanded again but back to a political boundary again with state zoning.<ref name="Whitnall" />

====Types in use in the United States====
Use-based zoning, especially single-use zoning, is by far the most common type of zoning in the US, where it is known as Euclidean zoning, after Euclid, Ohio's role in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, [[Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.]]<ref>272 U.S. 365, 71 L.Ed. 303, 47 S.Ct. 114 (1926).</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=The architecture student's handbook of professional practice |last=American Institute of Architects |publisher=Wiley |year=2017 |isbn=9781118738955 |location=Hoboken |pages=509 |quote=Euclidean zoning is the most prevalent form of zoning in the United States, and thus is most familiar to planners and design professionals.}}</ref> 

====Single-use zoning in the United States====
Single-use zoning takes two forms, flat and hierarchical, also known as cumulative or pyramidal.<ref name="Hirt 2014"/>{{rp||pages=61-63}}<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 2019 |title=Zoning 101 Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://odh.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/791e1124-7fd6-4782-8392-367a68257391/FAQ_Factsheet_Land+Use+Zoning.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE.Z18_M1HGGIK0N0JO00QO9DDDDM3000-791e1124-7fd6-4782-8392-367a68257391-mJMzfuy |access-date=February 9, 2024 |website=Ohio Department of Health}}</ref> Under flat zoning, each district is strictly designated for one use. In a simple hierarchical zoning system, districts are organized with residential (the most sensitive and least disruptive category) at the top, followed by commercial and industrial. Residential and commercial buildings are allowed in industrial zones and residential buildings are allowed in commercial zones.<ref name="Hirt 2014" />{{rp||pages=61-63}} More complex hierarchical systems account for multiple levels within categories, such as multiple types of residential buildings in multifamily residential districts.<ref name="Hirt 2014" />{{rp||pages=|page=130}}  Hierarchical zoning generally fell out of favor in the United States in the mid-twentieth century, with flat zoning becoming more popular, although many municipalities still incorporate some degree of hierarchy in their zoning ordinances.<ref name="Hirt 2014" />{{rp||pages=|page=65}}

Single-use zoning is used by many municipalities due to its ease of implementation (one set of explicit, prescriptive rules), long-established legal precedent, and familiarity to planners and design professionals. Single-use zoning has been criticized, however, for its lack of flexibility. Separation of uses can contribute to [[urban sprawl]], loss of open space, heavy infrastructure costs, and [[automobile dependency]].<ref name="Hirt 2014" />{{rp||pages=266-275}} In particular, [[single-family zoning]], residential districts where only single-family homes can be built, has been widely criticized as a cause of sprawl and racial segregation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Infranca |first=John |date=2023 |title=Singling Out Single-Family Zoning |url=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2023/06/GT-GGLJ230012.pdf |journal=Georgetown Law Journal |volume=111 |pages=670}}</ref>

====Social problems in the United States====
The United States suffers from greater levels of [[deurbanization]] and [[urban decay]] than other developed countries,<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/americas-cities-an-urban-_b_6896628 |title=America's Cities: An 'Urban Crisis' Ignored |work=The Huffington Post |year=2015}}</ref> and additional problems such as [[urban prairie]]s that do not occur elsewhere.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.buffalorising.com/2010/05/what-to-do-about-the-expanding-urban-prairie/ |title=What to do about the expanding urban prairie |publisher=Buffalo Rising |year=2010}}</ref> Jonathan Rothwell has argued that zoning encourages [[racial segregation]].<ref name="Rothwell">Rothwell, Jonathan T. and Massey, Douglas S. (2009) "The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas" Urban Affairs Review. Volume 4, Number 6, pp. 779-806</ref> He claims a strong relationship exists between an area's allowance of building housing at higher density and racial integration between blacks and whites in the United States.<ref name="Rothwell" /> The relationship between segregation and density is explained by Rothwell and Massey as the restrictive density zoning producing higher housing prices in white areas and limiting opportunities for people with modest incomes to leave segregated areas.<ref name="Rothwell" /> Between 1980 and 2000, [[racial integration]] occurred faster in areas that did not have strict density regulations than those that did.<ref name="Rothwell" /> Rothwell and Massey suggest homeowners and business interests are the two key players in density regulations that emerge from a political economy.<ref name="Rothwell" /> They propose that in older states where rural jurisdictions are primarily composed of homeowners, it is the narrow interests of homeowners to block development because tax rates are lower in rural areas, and taxation is more likely to fall on the median homeowner. Business interests are unable to counteract the homeowners' interests in rural areas because business interests are weaker and business ownership is rarely controlled by people living outside the community. This translates into rural communities that have a tendency to resist development by using density regulations to make business opportunities less attractive. Density zoning regulations in the U.S increase [[residential segregation in the United States|residential segregation]] in metropolitan areas by reducing the availability of affordable housing in some jurisdictions; other zoning regulations like school infrastructure regulations and growth controls are also variables associated with higher segregation. With more permissive zoning regulations there are lower levels of segregation; desegregation is higher in places with more liberal regulations on zoning, allowing the residents to integrate racially.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rothwell |first1=Jonathan |last2=Massey |first2=Douglas S. |title=The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas |journal=Urban Affairs Review |date=July 2009 |volume=44 |issue=6 |pages=779–806 |doi=10.1177/1078087409334163 |pmid=25009413 |pmc=4083588}}</ref> Metropolitan areas that allowed higher density development moved rapidly toward racial integration than their counterparts with strict density limitations. The greater the allowable density, the lower the level of racial segregation.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rothwell |first1=Jonathan |last2=Massey |first2=Douglas S. |title=The Effect of Density Zoning on Racial Segregation in U.S. Urban Areas |journal=Urban Affairs Review |date=July 2009 |volume=44 |issue=6 |pages=779–806 |doi=10.1177/1078087409334163|pmid=25009413 |pmc=4083588 }}</ref>

Zoning laws that limit the construction of new housing (like [[single-family zoning]]) are associated with reduced affordability and are a major factor in [[residential segregation in the United States]] by income and race.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Monkkonen |first1=Paavo |title=The Elephant in the Zoning Code: Single Family Zoning in the Housing Supply Discussion |journal=Housing Policy Debate |date=2019 |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=41–43 |doi=10.1080/10511482.2018.1506392|s2cid=158380453 |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2hk5k1k6 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Knaap |first1=Gerrit-Jan |last2=Meck |first2=Stuart |last3=Moore |first3=Terry |last4=Parker |first4=Robert |title=Do we know regulatory barriers when we see them? An exploration using zoning and development indicators |journal=Housing Policy Debate |date=2007 |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=711–749 |doi=10.1080/10511482.2007.9521619|s2cid=154878958 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Garde |first1=Ajay |last2=Song |first2=Qi |title=Housing Affordability Crisis and Inequities of Land Use Change: Insights From Cities in the Southern California Region |journal=Journal of the American Planning Association |date=2022 |volume=88 |issue=1 |pages=67–82 |doi=10.1080/01944363.2021.1911673 |s2cid=237827933 |url=https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/14842783 |quote=Researchers, national and state leaders, and professional and community interest groups argue that regulatory barriers contribute to housing shortages, emphasize that the strictness of land use regulation is correlated with high housing prices, and recommend zoning reform to address the problem}}</ref>