V. Unreasonable Limitations Cases
The "unreasonable limitations" prong of RLUIPA provides that a governmental entity "may not impose or implement a land use regulation that . . . unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction."568 The text implies that government may reasonably limit religious organizations and the provision was adopted not to assess restrictions on particular landowners but rather the regulations that unreasonably limit where religious entities may locate within a given jurisdiction. Otherwise it would essentially duplicate the substantial burden provision.569 As with the "nondiscrimination" and "exclusions" prongs, there are few cases interpreting the provision.
Vision Church v. Village of Long Grove570 is the leading case interpreting this provision. Here the court held that RLUIPA's legislative history provides the appropriate "reasonableness" inquiry: "[w]hat is reasonable must be determined in light of all the facts, including the actual availability of land and the economics of religious organizations."571 This test was applied in Chabad of Nova, Inc. v. City of Cooper City,572 in which the Chabad alleged that Cooper City's zoning code constituted an unreasonable limitation on the ability of religious assemblies to purchase property within the city.573 The city argued that approximately 85 percent of its property was currently zoned to permit religious assemblies and that 19 places of worship currently existed in the city.574 However, under a city ordinance, the frontage specifications in the residential districts still required religious assemblies to aggregate an average of three to four properties.575 Religious assemblies were therefore subject to approximately $500,000 to $1.4 million in additional costs to locate in the residential districts.576 Further, the Chabad provided evidence regarding the lack of available properties in the agricultural districts and the OP and P-1 districts, which religious assemblies were permitted to enter after October 2006 amendments to the ordinance.577
The district court found that "the only properties available to religious assemblies are in the Residential Districts, and at great expense." Further, the number of existing religious assemblies in the city was not evidence regarding the availability of reasonable opportunities for the entry of new religious assemblies under the current zoning ordinances. The court found that even after the October 2006...
