Schafer v. City of Los Angeles CA2/3, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1250

Background

Triangle Center owns lots used as a commercial parking lot since the 1950s; the City rezoned the lots to permit parking in 1956 but later changed the zoning to residential (R3) in 1988.
No certificate of occupancy was ever issued for the parking-lot use; City inspectors on multiple occasions noted “parking lot” as an approved use in inspection records.
In 2000 the City issued a restriping building permit for the lot; in 2009 Petitioners (neighboring homeowners) complained and the Department of Building and Safety opened and then closed enforcement files after internal determinations.
Petitioners administratively appealed the 2000 restriping permit; Zoning Administrator Green found the lot was not a legal nonconforming use and denied the permit.
The Planning Commission reversed, concluding the City was equitably estopped from disallowing the parking use; the trial court granted a writ of mandate setting aside the Planning Commission and reinstating the zoning administrator.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that even if the elements of estoppel could be met, equitable estoppel against the City was not justified because overriding public land-use policy would not be warranted.

Issues

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	City/Triangle Center's Argument	Held
Whether equitable estoppel applies to allow continued commercial parking despite lack of certificate of occupancy	City should not be estopped; the parking lot lacks legal nonconforming status because no certificate of occupancy was obtained	The City’s conduct and inaction (inspector notations, prior approvals, restriping permit) induced reliance; estoppel prevents enforcement against the lot	Even assuming reliance and other elements, estoppel against the City is improper because avoiding injustice does not outweigh strong public policy in favor of land-use controls
Whether the Planning Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Findings must be supported by substantial evidence and conform to law	Planning Commission’s findings of estoppel were supported by evidence of City conduct and neighborhood reliance	Substantial-evidence question not dispositive; legal balancing of public policy vs. private injustice controls and estoppel was inappropriate here
Whether estoppel may rest on governmental inaction	Inaction cannot alone create estoppel against the government; affirmative conduct is required	City’s notations and permits amounted to affirmative representations supporting estoppel	Court did not need to resolve fully but held the case fails on the balancing test even if inaction could qualify
Proper remedy for challenge to Planning Commission decision under Code Civ. Proc. §1094.5	Trial court should review for abuse of discretion and substantial evidence	Same	Court applied administrative mandamus standards and affirmed grant of writ directing reinstatement of zoning administrator’s decision

Key Cases Cited

City of Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (1970) (estoppel against government permissible only in rare, exceptional cases where refusing estoppel would cause grave injustice and public policy impact is minimal)
Toigo v. Town of Ross, 70 Cal.App.4th 309 (1999) (land-use estoppel is severely limited; estoppel may be invoked only in extraordinary cases where injustice is great and precedent narrow)
Pettitt v. City of Fresno, 34 Cal.App.3d 813 (1973) (zoning laws serve vital public interests; estoppel against municipality generally disfavored even where owner made expenditures in reliance)
West Washington Properties, LLC v. Department of Transportation, 210 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2012) (denial of estoppel proper where public policy concerns outweigh owner’s financial hardship)
Golden Gate Water Ski Club v. County of Contra Costa, 165 Cal.App.4th 249 (2008) (equitable estoppel denied for long-standing unauthorized development where public interest and precedent concerns outweighed injustice)