Ohio House, LLC operated a sober living facility for men recovering from addiction in Costa Mesa, California in a multi-family residential zone. Ohio House began offering these services and housing to men in 2012. The City of Costa Mesa (“City”) enacted zoning ordinances in 2015 regulating group homes and sober living homes, including separation requirements between facilities. In 2016, City denied Ohio House’s application for a conditional use permit because the facility did not meet the separation requirement; it was not 650 feet apart from other sober living homes. Among other considerations, City noted in its denial that not requiring Ohio House to comply with the separation requirement would fundamentally alter City’s zoning program. City ordered Ohio House to cease operations and imposed numerous fines.

Ohio House sued City for unlawful discrimination against its residents in violation of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and other claims. 

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Ohio House’s intentional discrimination claim failed because the differential treatment imposed under City’s group-living regulations facially benefitted the protected class. City’s zoning code benefitted the disabled over non-disabled because it allowed group homes and sober-living homes with six or fewer residents to operate in residential zones, whereas boarding houses of any size (without supportive services for the disabled) were categorically barred from operating in residential districts. Therefore, there was no intentional discrimination.

Moreover, the court held that Ohio House failed to establish that City’s zoning code disparately impacted the disabled because Ohio House could not prove that the protected class – disabled individuals – suffered an adverse and disproportionate impact, rather the operators of group homes did. Additionally, the court found no evidence of discriminatory preferences disfavoring the disabled or interference with Ohio House’s operations by City because City did not have a discriminatory intent in passing its zoning ordinance. The Court found sufficient evidence that City made changes to its zoning to prevent an overconcentration of group living arrangements that produce deleterious effects to the residential character of communities. 

TAKEAWAY:  Community associations may not prohibit residential care facilities or sober- living homes that service six or fewer persons pursuant to California Health and Safety Code. This case had no impact on that body of law. However, this decision may result in more cities having confidence to adopt rules that prohibit group living arrangements, while allowing disability-related housing like group homes and sober-living homes to operate, subject to restrictions.