9th Circuit rejects challenge to Costa Mesa’s sober living home ordinance

The ruling affirms a previous trial court decision and jury verdict

By Sheri Chapman, general counsel

A panel of judges last week ruled in favor of Costa Mesa’s distancing requirement between sober living homes in residential neighborhoods. The court rejected claims that the city’s zoning regulations unlawfully discriminated against disabled individuals in violation of the Fair Housing Act, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California Planning and Zoning law.

Cal Cities filed an amicus brief in support of the city, advocating for cities’ fundamental and essential role in land use regulation.  

Case background

Ohio House operates a sober living facility in Costa Mesa — five 2,400-square-foot, two-story detached units, each with four bedrooms, housing approximately 45 residents. The city’s ordinance required a conditional use permit for the property and separation of at least 650 feet from similar facilities. With several other group homes within 650 feet, the property did not meet the separation requirement. The city denied Ohio House’s application for a permit and denied the request to waive the separation requirement as a reasonable accommodation.

Ohio House filed a lawsuit, Ohio House LLC v City of Costa Mesa, alleging the city violated federal and state housing laws that prohibit zoning and land use practices that discriminate on the basis of disability.

A district court granted several of the claims in favor of the city, and a jury decided the remaining claims in the city’s favor. The court then denied Ohio House’s post-trial motions. Ohio House appealed the case to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 9th Circuit has previously opined on group home regulations. The court has recognized that the law protects people recovering from addiction from housing discrimination based on their disability and prohibits discriminatory actions adversely affecting the availability of group homes for people recovering from addiction. In the 9th Circuit, sober living home operators are allowed to sue to invalidate state or local laws that purport to require or permit an action that would be a discriminatory housing practice.

Case outcome

The 9th Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Ohio House’s claims: The city’s ordinance does not create disparate treatment, impact, interference, or discriminatory statements in violation of federal or state law.

The court determined the discriminatory treatment and impact claims failed, finding that although the city’s zoning code treats sober living homes differently than other dwellings, the regulations ultimately benefit disabled persons. The city’s zoning code provides group homes serving disabled people multiple pathways to operate lawfully, which are generally not available to those serving the non-disabled.

Ohio House claimed the city’s regulations were unlawful because they were not the least restrictive means of achieving the city’s purpose. The court rejected that claim.

“Nuisance laws simply are not an alternative means for ensuring that individuals recovering from substance abuse have an equal opportunity to live in residential rather than institutionalized neighborhoods,” the court opined.

The panel also rejected Ohio House’s claim that the city interfered with its aiding or encouraging another’s exercise of their rights under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), finding no proof of intentional discrimination or discriminatory animus. The court found Ohio House failed to prove a causal link between its protected activity of providing sober living housing and the city’s actions it alleged impeded that activity.

The court also rejected Ohio House’s claim the city violated the FHA and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act’s prohibitions against discriminatory statements by enacting a “discriminatory” zoning code. Under the FHA, it is unlawful to make a statement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that a reader would believe suggests a preference, limitation, or discrimination based upon protected status, such as disability. Similarly, per the FEHA, a housing policy that’s discriminatory on its face or an express discriminatory statement is unlawful.

The court declined to decide whether a city regulation could trigger liability for a discriminatory statement. Instead, it found a discriminatory statement claim “rises and falls” with a disparate treatment claim, which had been decided against Ohio House. The court further determined comments by city employees suggesting a discriminatory purpose were insufficient to overturn the jury’s verdict, noting the scope of liability is defined by the statement’s impact on the reader, viewer, or listener — not the subjective motivations of the speaker.

Lastly, the court rejected Ohio House’s claim alleging the city denied a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. Under the FHA, unlawful discrimination includes a refusal to make a reasonable accommodation when such accommodations may be necessary to give disabled people equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The court affirmed the jury’s finding that the accommodation requested was unreasonable because it would cause a fundamental alteration of the city’s zoning scheme.

City officials with questions about the impact of this ruling should consult their city attorney.