Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plans As a Standard of Judicial Review: The Case Against

This Article examines the conceptual basis and judicial recognition of the formal subordination of zoning to planning. First, the planner's viewpoint is examined, including his claim to expertise as a justification for public intervention into the land market in contravention of the choices made by private developers. Secondly, the treatment accorded comprehensive plans by the courts is explored, focusing on judicial receptivity to the argument that zoning changes should be consistent with the adopted plan. Thirdly, other uses of plans as a standard of judicial review are surveyed, with emphasis on the "activist" approach of intensive review.

Lastly, the proper role for land use plans in judicial reasoning is delineated.