Also known as: piecemeal-zoning · spot zoning
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A form of zoning regulation that applies to only selected parcels or omits certain areas or regulatory elements from a comprehensive zoning scheme. Courts use the term to describe ordinances that leave out districts from coverage, regulate fewer than all standard elements such as height area and use, or effect small-parcel rezonings. Such changes remain subject to the requirement that they bear a substantial relation to public health safety morals or general welfare and avoid arbitrary favoritism.
The town council amends the zoning map to permit a construction equipment depot on one vacant lot inside a single-family subdivision while every surrounding lot stays residential. Harper Construction receives the benefit. Adjacent homeowners challenge the change. The court treats the isolated amendment as piecemeal zoning and examines whether it serves a legitimate public purpose or instead favors one owner without regard to the surrounding residential pattern.
The city council rezones only Pier 7 to allow a luxury marina and cruise terminal while all other piers remain limited to cargo and fishing uses. Oceanic Cruises gains the new permission. Cargo operators at neighboring piers sue. The court evaluates the single-pier change as piecemeal zoning and asks whether the departure from surrounding industrial uses can be justified by a public purpose or instead amounts to arbitrary favoritism.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Piecemeal zoning applies only to selected parcels or omits areas and regulatory elements from a full ordinance. Comprehensive zoning covers an entire jurisdiction with uniform rules for height area and use. Courts scrutinize piecemeal changes for consistency with the comprehensive plan and the general welfare.
Supporting sources
Piecemeal zoning is invalid when it singles out one parcel or small area for a use inconsistent with surrounding zones and lacks a legitimate public purpose. Courts invalidate such changes when they appear arbitrary or confer a private favor rather than advancing health safety morals or general welfare.
No. Procedural compliance satisfies due process but does not cure substantive defects. The amendment must still bear a substantial relation to public health safety morals or general welfare and must not constitute arbitrary spot zoning favoring one owner.
Economic development may support a rezoning but does not automatically validate it. The change must still align with the comprehensive plan and serve the broader community rather than primarily benefiting one landowner without a genuine public purpose.