Dalton and Tomich white logo
Dalton and Tomich white logo

Navigating Faith and Zoning: Understanding “Substantial Burden” under RLUIPA

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protects the right of religious organizations to practice their faith without undue government interference. A key concept within RLUIPA is the idea of a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. This blog post unpacks what this term means and how it impacts religious institutions and land-use regulations.

RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause guarantees the right to practice one’s religion freely. However, this right isn’t absolute. Local governments have the authority to enact zoning laws to promote public safety and order. RLUIPA seeks to balance these competing interests. It prohibits zoning regulations that place a “substantial burden” on religious exercise without a compelling justification.

What is a “Substantial Burden”?

The term “substantial burden” in RLUIPA has confused and divided lower courts since it first appeared in the Act. The legislative history of RLUIPA reveals that Congress made a deliberate choice not to define “substantial burden,” but rather allow courts to utilize that definition from this Court’s jurisprudence starting with Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). Religious groups – especially religious minorities or those associated with racial or ethnic minorities – have paid a heavy price for that confusion, especially in land-use permitting decisions.

 Courts have developed a case-by-case approach, considering factors like:

  • Sincerity of the religious belief: Is the practice genuinely held as a religious tenet?
  • Nature of the burden: Does the regulation prevent core religious practices or create significant logistical hurdles?
  • Alternatives available: Can the religious organization find a reasonable alternative location or practice?
  • Impact on the government interest: Does the regulation address a legitimate public concern, and is there a less restrictive way to achieve it?

Examples of Substantial Burden

Here are some scenarios that might be considered a “substantial burden”:

  • The  “delay, uncertainty and expense” of multiple land use applications
  • Denial of a permit to build a place of worship due to zoning restrictions, especially if there’s no reasonable alternative location.
  • Regulations that significantly restrict the ability to hold religious ceremonies or gatherings.
  • Requirements that force a religious organization to significantly alter its practices in a way that violates their beliefs.

Examples of Not a Substantial Burden

Not every inconvenience qualifies as a substantial burden. Courts might not find a burden in situations like:

  • Minor adjustments to building plans to comply with safety regulations.
  • Reasonable noise ordinances that apply to all entities, religious or not.
  • Denial of a permit if a suitable alternative location exists.

Beyond the Law: Finding Common Ground

While RLUIPA provides a legal framework, open communication between religious organizations and local authorities can go a long way. Presenting well-defined plans that address potential concerns can foster collaboration and avoid legal battles.


RLUIPA’s “substantial burden” standard protects religious institutions from unreasonable restrictions on their ability to practice their faith. Understanding this concept empowers religious organizations and fosters a more balanced approach to land-use regulations. Remember, legal advice is essential for navigating specific situations. By working together, religious communities and governments can ensure a future where faith and public order coexist peacefully.

Determining whether a regulation creates a substantial burden can be complex. If your religious organization feels its exercise of faith is being unduly burdened by zoning regulations, consulting with an attorney experienced in RLUIPA is crucial. They can help navigate the legal landscape and ensure your right to religious freedom is protected.  Please contact Daniel Dalton or one of the professionals at Dalton & Tomich PLC to evaluate your case to determine if there is a viable “Substantial Burden” claim under RLUIPA.

Attorney Advertising Disclaimer

Please note that this website may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Prior results described on this site do not guarantee similar outcomes in future cases or transactions.