Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission

Supreme Court of California
553 P.2d 546 (Cal. 1976)


Facts

The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (the Act) required that on or after February 1, 1973, anyone desiring to perform any development within a designated coastal zone obtain a permit from the California Coastal Zone Commission (the Commission). The Act provided an exemption by allowing a developer to proceed after February 1, 1973 if the developer had gained a vested right to do so by obtaining a building permit, commencing construction, and performing substantial work in reliance on the permit before that date. Avco Community Developers, Inc. (Avco) (plaintiff) owned land in Orange County, California, including a tract within the coastal zone, which had been zoned in 1971 for a community development to be built by Avco. In 1972, a subdivision map was approved for the tract, and a permit was issued that did not refer to any specific building or building site. Avco performed studies for the development of the tract but did not begin construction prior to February 1, 1973. Avco applied to the South Coast Regional Commission (defendant) for an exemption to the building-permit requirement but was denied. Avco unsuccessfully sought a writ of mandate from the trial court to compel the exemption. Avco appealed, arguing it had obtained a vested right under the Act and therefore could continue with development. Avco further argued it should have been entitled to a building permit upon application, so long as the physical requirements of the building code were met, because the subdivision itself had already been approved. Finally, Avco argued that it had a vested right, because the planned subdivision served the public interest and Orange County was estopped from enforcing the Act against Avco due to the terms of a prior contract between Avco and Orange County for the sale of beach property.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Mosk, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.