One of the most important issues that a land use litigant will run into is the question of standing. That is, whether a court will agree that you have a sufficient interest to bring a lawsuit in the first place. If not, a case can be dismissed early on.
But for some kinds of cases, a traditional standing analysis is not the threshold question that land use litigants must satisfy. For persons appealing the administrative decisions of zoning boards of appeals, for example, there must be a showing that you are an “aggrieved person” under the Michigan Zoning and Enabling Act (MZEA). Under Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Saugatuck Twp., the Michigan Supreme Court established that this standard several elements, including a showing of “special damages” that is “different in kind or more significant in degree than the effects on others in the local community.” 509 Mich. 561, 595, 983 N.W.2d 798, 815–16 (2022). Therefore, owning property adjacent to a challenged development may not be enough to establish a right to appeal the decision of a ZBA decision.
In some instances, courts have attempted to apply this heightened standard to other disputes besides appeals of ZBA decisions. For instance, in Sakorafos v. Charter Twp. of Lyon, 349 Mich. App. 176, 27 N.W.3d 329 (2023), in response to a nuisance claim brought by several property owners due to the construction of a veterinary clinic nearby their home, the Township raised the defense that the plaintiff property owner’s lacked standing to pursue the case. The Township argued that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the aggrieved persons standard for special damages. Id. at 337–338. The trial court agreed with the defendant and granted summary disposition as to the Plaintiff’s nuisance claims. Id. at 338.
The Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed, however, and found that aggrieved persons test is not relevant to the question of standing for nuisance litigants. In those cases, a different test is applied and that “an adjoining landowner is likely to be determined to be affected by the nuisance created by a zoning violation in a manner distinct from the public.”Id. at 190. According to the court, plaintiffs were not required to show that their injury was “unique” compared to the surrounding community before they could bring their nuisance claim. Id. The Court of Appeals thus clarified that the aggrieved persons test necessary for appellants of ZBA decisions is not applicable to other kinds of land use disputes—reversing the trial court’s application of this test to land use litigants.
Before bringing litigation to challenge the decisions of municipalities related to land use, it is important to consider whether you have standing to bring the kind of case you are contemplating in the first place. The experienced attorneys at Dalton & Tomich, PLC would be happy to discuss your options and whether you have standing to bring the kind of case you are considering.
