Richmond lags behind other cities in antiquated restrictions on the number of unrelated persons living together

October 5, 2024 by Tom Roberts, Esq.

Richmond's restrictions on unrelated adults living together are antiquated and violates due process and equal protection:

Addressing growing affordable housing problems, shifts in demographics and encouraging community living should cause Richmond to revisit its antiquated restriction on the number of unrelated adults living together in a single family house.

One Court Recognized the Problem and Rejected the Restrictions as Unconstitutional under the State Constitution:

In Brookhaven N.Y., five (5) unrelated elderly women, lived in a house located in a Town of Brookhaven residential zone where only one-family dwellings are permitted as of right. The evil town charged them with a violation of the zoning ordinance and they sued for a violation of due process under NY Const, art I, § 6

In a very short opinion the New York Court of Appeals struck down the restriction as unconstitutional under New York’s Constitution. It stated: In McMinn v Town of Oyster Bay (66 NY2d 544) we addressed the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance which limited the number and age of unrelated persons who could dwell in a single-family home to two persons, 62 years of age or older. We held that the ordinance was invalid because it imposed a restriction on the number of unrelated persons residing together as a functionally equivalent family but imposed no such restriction on related persons. Such differentiation, we said, was not reasonably related to a legitimate zoning purpose and, therefore, violated the State Due Process Clause (see, id., at 550-551). Because the ordinance here similarly restricts the size of a functionally equivalent family but not the size of a traditional family, it violates our State Constitution.

Baer v. Brookhaven, 73 N.Y.2d 942, 943 (1989).

Virginia's Constitution:

Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

Failing the Rational Basis Test:

Manifestly, restricting occupancy of single-family housing based generally on the biological or legal relationships between its inhabitants bears no reasonable relationship to the goals of reducing parking and traffic problems, controlling population density and preventing noise and disturbance (see, Moore v East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499-500; id., at p 520, n 16 [Stevens, J., concurring]; City of Santa Barbara v Adamson, 27 Cal 3d 123, 610 P2d 436, 441; State v Baker, 81 NJ 99, 405 A2d 368, 373). Their achievement depends not upon the biological or legal relations between the occupants of a house but generally upon the size of the dwelling and the lot and the number of its occupants. Thus, the definition of family employed here is both fatally overinclusive in prohibiting, for example, a young unmarried couple from occupying a four-bedroom house who do not threaten the purposes of the ordinance and underinclusive in failing to prohibit occupancy of a two-bedroom home by 10 or 12 persons who are related in only the most distant manner and who might well be expected to present serious overcrowding and traffic problems.

McMinn v. Oyster Bay, 66 N.Y.2d 544, 549-550 (1985)

City by City Comparison

Richmond, VA.

3 unrelated adults

For residential zones classified as R-1 (single-family residential districts), no more than three unrelated individuals are permitted to live together as a single household. See Richmond Website – Richmond City Code – definition of family §33 Virginia Code § 36-105.4.

However Richmond Code permits up to 8 handicapped persons:

§30-1220.33(6)

“No more than eight handicapped persons, as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act, occupying a single dwelling unit, and in addition thereto may include one or more resident counselors or other staff persons.”

Austin, TX

6 unrelated adults

Except as otherwise provided in this section, not more than six unrelated adults may reside in a dwelling unit. Austin City Code

Charlotte, NC

6 unrelated adults

How many people may live in a house?
In a residential district, up to six unrelated individuals may live in a house as a family. There is no zoning restriction for the number of family members related by blood, marriage or adoption living in a home. Charlotte NC

Tampa, Fl

4 unrelated adults

Family: Any number of people related by blood, marriage, legal guardianship, or adoption or not more than four (4) unrelated persons living together as a single housekeeping unit, using a single facility in a dwelling unit for culinary purposes. Tampa Code §27-43

New York City

3 unrelated adults

Family: (c) Not more than three unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit and maintaining a common household; or (d) Not more than three unrelated persons occupying a dwelling unit in a congregate
housing or shared living arrangement and maintaining a common household;… NYCity Code §27–2004

Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC
105 S 1st Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-783-2000

Disclaimer

The materials are prepared for information purposes only. The materials are not legal advice. You should not act upon the information without seeking the advice of an attorney. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship.

Category Civil Rights, Commentary, Due Process, General, Litigation | Tags: chesterfield zoning restrictions on single family dwellings, how many unrelated persons can live together in Chesterfield County, how many unrelated persons can live together in Henrico County, how many unrelated persons can live together in Richmond, number of unrelated persons living together, richmond zoning restrictions on single family dwellings

Thomas H. Roberts & Associates, PC