In the world of real estate, development projects can often move quickly. One day, a vacant field or an old industrial site is open; the next, a massive proposal is being processed through the local land use and zoning department. Whether it’s a new “hyperscale” data center, a sprawling solar farm, or a high-density housing complex, these larger projects can raise questions and concerns for residents and local officials alike about land use, infrastructure, and long-term planning.
Michigan is at the forefront of experiencing a “gold rush” to develop data centers on its land. This has led to fierce opposition in many communities over concerns about impacts to noise, water access, and the electrical grid. As a result, some municipalities such as Howell Township, have recently adopted temporary ordinances referred to as “zoning moratoriums.”
Zoning moratoriums can be defined as a temporary legal pause to municipalities accepting applications for a specific land use. Overall, the purpose of adopting a moratorium is so that local governments can assess and study the impacts a specific land use may have. In the case of Howell Township, its Board of Trustees voted back in November 2025, to enact a six-month moratorium on data center applications. Moreover, Waterford Township as of late February 2026, is also considering imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of applications pertaining to large-scale data center facilities.
Unlike some states, Michigan does not have a specific moratorium statute. Rather, municipalities derive their zoning authority from the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (“MZEA”). Under the MZEA, MCL 125.3404, the legislative body of a local unit of government may enact interim (or temporary) zoning ordinances to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents, lands, and resources. Depending on the type of local government, the MZEA establishes certain procedural requirements such as holding a noticed public hearing.
Michigan law strictly limits the duration of interim zoning ordinances. Pursuant to MCL 125.3404(4), such ordinances are “limited to 1 year from the effective date and to not more than 2 years of renewal thereafter by resolution of the local unit of government.” This provision consequently establishes a three-year maximum for any temporary restrictive ordinances. To renew an interim zoning ordinance, the MZEA only specifies that action must be taken by the local government. The statute does not provide any further procedural provisions. Therefore, municipal codes and regulations should be reviewed to confirm any additional renewal requirements.
As noted above, the statutory justification for authorizing adoption of temporary ordinances is to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of its residents, lands, and resources of the municipality. See MCL 125.3404(1). Courts will therefore apply a reasonableness standard when evaluating challenges to interim ordinances. The Michigan Supreme Court established in Kyser v. Township, 486 Mich. 514 (2010), that “[s]tarting with such a presumption, the burden is upon the person challenging such an ordinance to overcome this presumption by proving that there is no reasonable governmental interest being advanced by the zoning ordinance.” In other words, the challenger must prove “that the ordinance is an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner’s use of his property.” Id. at 521 (quoting Brae Burn, Inc. v. Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich. 425, 432 (1957)). Over the last few years, numerous developers have sued local governments across the state challenging zoning moratoriums restricting large-scale solar/renewable energy projects. This legal landscape continues to evolve however, with the adoption of state legislation (Public Act 233) in 2024 shifting local control over such projects to state authority.
When properly enacted and administered within the framework of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, interim zoning moratoriums can provide municipalities with temporary stability while longer-term land use regulations are evaluated or updated. At the same time, the statutory duration limits and evolving state‑level policy—particularly with respect to certain energy and infrastructure projects—underscore the need for careful legal and procedural review. Our land use and zoning attorneys have extensive experience assisting clients with land use and zoning matters across Michigan. If you have any questions about interim ordinances or need guidance on a specific zoning moratorium, contact Dalton & Tomich, PLC to speak with one of our attorneys.
