What Is The Difference Between Variances in Property?

There are two main types of variances in property law: use variances, which allow a property to be used for a purpose not permitted by zoning laws, and area variances, which alter dimensional requirements like setbacks or height restrictions. Each seeks to provide flexibility while balancing the enforcement of zoning regulations.

In property law, variances are exceptions granted to zoning laws that allow property owners to deviate from specific zoning requirements. The two primary types of variances are use variances and area variances. Use variances permit property owners to use their land in a way that zoning regulations typically do not allow, thus accommodating circumstances where a strict adherence would create unnecessary hardship. For example, a property zoned strictly for residential use might obtain a use variance to operate a small bed-and-breakfast.

On the other hand, area variances deal with exemptions related to the physical characteristics of the property, such as setback requirements, lot sizes, or building heights. An area variance is often sought when a property is uniquely shaped or situated in such a way that complying with zoning ordinances would impose practical difficulties on the landowner, like requiring a significant redesign of a planned structure.

The granting of variances typically requires the applicant to demonstrate that strict compliance with zoning regulations would cause unnecessary hardship, that the variance won't alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and that the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate that hardship. This balancing act ensures that while property owners have some leeway to develop their property, the community's zoning objectives are also respected.

In addition, the standards for review can differ significantly by jurisdiction, with some areas employing more stringent requirements than others. Variances also require a public hearing in many instances, ensuring that neighboring property owners have the opportunity to voice their opinions, further emphasizing the debate between individual property rights and community regulations.

• 1Zoning Board of Appeals v. Bulding Inspector (2006) - affirmed that variances must meet a 'hardship' standard.
• 2Landmark v. Town of Saugus (2005) - clarified the differentiation between use and area variances.
• 3Nestor v. City of Cincinnati (2000) - significant case regarding the reasonableness of a variance application.
• 4Smith v. City of New York (2010) - tackled issues regarding the character of the neighborhood in variance decisions.

• what-is-a-use-variance
• what-is-an-area-variance
• how-to-apply-for-a-variance