Mount Laurel doctrine


The Mount Laurel doctrine is a significant judicial doctrine of the New Jersey State Constitution. The doctrine requires that municipalities use their zoning powers in an affirmative manner to provide a realistic opportunity for the production of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
The doctrine takes its name from the lead case in which it was first pronounced by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1975: Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Mount Laurel Township, in which the plaintiffs challenged the zoning ordinance of Mount Laurel Township, New Jersey, on the grounds that it operated to exclude low and moderate income persons from obtaining housing in the municipality.

History

Initial development

, a sixth-generation resident of Mt. Laurel Township, was the lead plaintiff in the original Mt. Laurel case after officials in Mt. Laurel Township declared their intention of condemning and tearing down the low-income housing in her community. With no realistic alternative other than moving to the slums of Camden or Philadelphia, many residents grew increasingly concerned about the rising pressure to leave. Lawrence was connected through a local minister to Carl S. Bisgaier, director of Camden Regional Legal Services who had been looking for a plaintiff for the Mt. Laurel case. Together with attorneys Kenneth E. Meiser, Thomas J. Oravetz and Peter J. O'Connor, Bisgaier filed the lawsuit commonly known as Mt. Laurel I. After the decision in Mount Laurel I, suits were filed against numerous municipalities. The plaintiffs in such suits fell into three classes: lower income persons who actually sought housing and advocacy organizations on their behalf; the New Jersey Public Advocate; and builders who sought to construct developments containing affordable housing.
These early exclusionary zoning suits were beset by numerous difficulties and little, if any, affordable housing resulted. In 1983 appeals in several of these cases, gave the New Jersey Supreme Court the opportunity to reaffirm and tweak the Mount Laurel Doctrine and provide several mechanisms and remedies to make the doctrine more effective.

1980s legislative reaction

The New Jersey Supreme Court was aware that the Mount Laurel II decision would be controversial and would engender debate about the proper role of the courts. The opinion invited legislative action to implement what the court defined as the constitutional obligation.
In 1985 the New Jersey Legislature responded by passing the . Accepting the premise that there was some constitutional obligation for municipalities to foster some degree of affordable housing, this legislation created an administrative agency, the Council on Affordable Housing, to establish regulations whereby the obligation of each municipality in terms of the number of units and how the obligation could be satisfied.
A municipality which elected to participate in COAH's administrative process prior to being sued was provided with protection from litigation and especially the builder's remedy. As a transitional provision, the act provided that municipalities involved in litigation when the act was passed were to be able to transfer the litigation to COAH unless manifest injustice would result.
COAH developed regulations under which the specific number of affordable units that each municipality would be required to provide could be determined. Participating municipalities developed compliance plans to address this need by such means as the application of credits, the use of regional contribution agreements and zoning for affordable housing. When COAH approved a municipality's compliance plan it would grant "substantive certification" which was designed to provide the municipality with protection from exclusionary zoning litigation.
From the municipal point of view, the advantages of COAH's administrative process included the use of a formula to calculate fair share that might produce a lower obligation than the court would impose, the availability of the regional contribution agreement to reduce the number of units and the ability to determine where in the municipality that affordable housing ought to be developed rather than being forced to permit a development as a reward to a successful builder-plaintiff. Those municipalities that chose not to participate in COAH's administrative process remained vulnerable to exclusionary zoning lawsuits and the prospect of the builder's remedy. The disadvantage would be that a participating municipality might be required to zone some land in a manner that extra housing would be produced. Some municipalities, believing that the likelihood of facing an actual exclusionary zoning lawsuit was low enough, took their chances in not participating.

Criticism of the decision

While the Mount Laurel decision mandates a state constitutional obligation for every municipality in a "growth area" to provide a fair share of its region's present and prospective housing needs for low and moderate income families, there is no funding source specified for low or very-low income families, in a state that already has some of the nation's highest property taxes. Some have accused the decision for being an example of judicial activism.

1980s judicial response to the Fair Housing Act

The New Jersey Supreme Court welcomed the legislature's adoption of the Fair Housing Act. A number of trial court decisions had denied transfer of pending cases to COAH under the manifest injustice standard, but the Supreme Court read that term very narrowly and ordered the cases transferred. The trial courts were directed to conform their rulings with regard to calculation of each municipality's obligation and how to meet it to COAH's regulations and the statute was found facially constitutional and interpreted to grant COAH ample authority, such as restraining the use of scarce resources for other than providing affordable housing, to assure that affordable housing might actually be built.

2020s

The Cranbury Town Committee voted unanimously on May 12, 2025 to use eminent domain to seize a 175 year old farm in order to allow the construction of affordable housing. The doctrine established by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in 1975 requires municipalities in New Jersey to change their zoning laws to enable the construction of low and middle income housing. The family is fighting the decision and enlisted the support of former Cranbury mayor, Jay Taylor.

Council on Affordable Housing (COAH)

In 1985, the New Jersey legislature passed the Fair Housing Act, which codified the affordable housing obligations of municipalities and created a state agency called the Council on Affordable Housing.
With 11 members appointed by the Governor on the advice and consent of the Senate, COAH was empowered to: define housing regions, estimate low and moderate income housing needs, set criteria and guidelines for municipalities to determine and address their own fair share numbers and then review and approve Housing Elements and Fair Share Plans and Regional Contribution Agreements for municipalities. As a quasi-judicial organization, COAH could also impose resource restraints and consider motions regarding housing plans.
In New Jersey, the amount of affordable housing units each municipality should provide is determined in rounds. This allows each municipality to adjust for an ever-changing demand for affordable housing. These calculations have been based on different methodologies throughout the years. During the first two rounds of affordable housing obligations, calculations were based on the “fair share” method.
During the third round of affordable housing obligations, COAH introduced calculations based on the “growth share” method. During these three rounds, a total of 1,469 deed-restricted affordable units per year were created. COAH faced significant pushback with this methodology as housing advocates claimed the affordable housing produced was insufficient to address the need. This criticism, coupled with political pressure and allegations of inaction from COAH, ultimately led to the New Jersey Supreme Court decision, Mount Laurel IV, that COAH had failed. COAH was effectively stripped of its power and jurisdiction over affordable housing production was given back to the courts. The Court also appointed Fair Share Housing Center to represent the interests of the public.

Fair Share Housing Center

Fair Share Housing Center, or FSHC, is a Cherry Hill-based nonprofit organization that litigates against towns in enforcement of fair housing development and is one of the most prominent affordable housing advocates in New Jersey.
FSHC was founded in 1975 after the landmark Mount Laurel I ruling that declared that all municipalities in New Jersey must provide their fair share of affordable housing. The organization was founded by the plaintiffs, including both the community leaders and their attorneys, of Mount Laurel I. In 2015, when New Jersey’s Supreme Court eliminated COAH and replaced it with a new system in which lower courts had dedicated Mount Laurel judges who oversaw the municipal housing plans, FSHC was also granted an official role monitoring compliance with affordable housing laws throughout the state.

Builder's Remedy

A builder's remedy is a legal mechanism that can be used to expedite the construction of low or middle income housing when a municipality fails to comply with their Mount Laurel obligations.
In 1983, the New Jersey Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic premise of Mount Laurel I in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158, and made the doctrine enforceable by giving developers an incentive to initiate exclusionary zoning suits. This incentive came to be known as the “builder’s remedy.”
When a builder proposes a development that includes affordable housing and a municipality denies the proposal for violating local zoning codes, the developer may challenge the denial on the grounds that the municipality has not complied with the Mount Laurel doctrine. If a court determines that the municipality had not complied with the Mount Laurel doctrine, the court may permit the developer to construct the project despite violations to the local zoning code and invalidate the offending zoning provision for excluding affordable housing.