Andon, LLC v. The City of Newport News, VA, 813 F.3d 510

In 2012 Reconciling People Together in Faith Ministries, LLC (the congregation) sought to lease a commercial property at 6212 Jefferson Ave. in Newport News to use as a church; the property was owned by Andon, LLC.
The municipal zoning ordinance permitted a place of worship only if four conditions were met, including a 100-foot setback from side/rear property lines adjacent to single-family residential lots; the subject building did not meet that setback.
Andon and the congregation entered a lease contingent on obtaining “City approval” to use the property as a church; Andon applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a variance from the setback requirement.
City staff recommended denial; the BZA denied the variance after a public hearing, and a Virginia circuit court upheld that decision on appeal.
The plaintiffs sued under RLUIPA alleging the BZA’s denial imposed a substantial burden on their religious exercise (delay, expense, and uncertainty); the district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and denied leave to amend.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding plaintiffs failed to plead a government-imposed substantial burden and that amendment would be futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of the zoning variance imposed a "substantial burden" under RLUIPA	BZA denial prevented the congregation from obtaining a viable worship site, causing delay, expense, and uncertainty sufficient to state a substantial-burden claim	Plaintiffs entered a contingent lease despite knowing the property was nonconforming; any hardship is self-imposed, not government-imposed	Denial affirmed — no governmental substantial burden; plaintiffs had no reasonable expectation the property would be allowed for use as a church
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint	Amendment could allege additional facts showing a government-imposed burden and cure deficiencies	Amendment would be futile because any additional facts could not convert a self-imposed risk into a government-imposed substantial burden	Denial affirmed — amendment would have been futile

Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery Cty. Council, 706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013) (explains RLUIPA substantial-burden theory where land-use rules forced abandonment or major modification of preexisting plans)
Petra Presbyterian Church v. Village of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846 (7th Cir. 2007) (purchaser’s knowledge that permit would be denied precludes RLUIPA substantial-burden claim)
Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2006) (substantial-burden analysis in land-use context)
Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752 (7th Cir. 2003) (scarcity and cost of land alone do not establish RLUIPA substantial burden)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: claim must be plausible on its face)
Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105 (4th Cir. 2013) (denial of leave to amend is appropriate when amendment would be futile)