By Todd Williams and Darien Key
In The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a U.S. District Court’s decision on summary judgment that, as a matter of law, a city’s requirement that group-living facilities must be separated by at least 650 feet did not violate the Fair Housing Act (FHA). The Ninth Circuit also upheld a jury verdict in favor of the City of Costa Mesa (City) as to claims brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and rejected a claim under the California Planning and Zoning Law as untimely. [The Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, 135 F.4th 645 (9th Cir. 2025).]
Background
The Ohio House (Ohio House), an operator of a sober-living home for persons recovering from addiction, sued the City of Costa Mesa, alleging zoning regulations that required group-living facilities to be separated from each other by at least 650 feet discriminated against individuals with disabilities in violation of the FHA, FEHA, and the Planning and Zoning Law.
The District Court for the Central District of California granted city’s motion for summary judgment on the disparate impact claims. A jury trial was held on the remaining claims. The jury returned a verdict in the City’s favor. The District Court issued findings related to the Planning and Zoning Law claim and entered judgment for the City. Ohio House appealed.
Disparate Treatment Claims Were Properly Denied
A city violates the FHA if its zoning rules discriminate against disabled individuals and contribute to denying housing to such persons. Persons recovering from drug or alcohol addiction are considered “disabled” under the FHA. Group, or “sober-living,” homes for such persons are covered “dwellings” under the FHA and FEHA, meaning federal and California law prohibit discriminatory actions that lessen the availability of such homes.
Disparate treatment is synonymous with intentional discrimination. To prevail on a disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff must establish a discriminatory intent or motive by the defendant. A plaintiff may demonstrate such intent through evidence of indirect discrimination and that a facially neutral explanation for the challenged rule is actually pretextual.
The Ninth Circuit’s Decision
While Ohio House argued that the City’s separation requirement was discriminatory against disabled individuals since it facially imposed differential treatment by treating sober living homes differently from other dwellings, the Court of Appeals found that the City’s law facially benefited the disabled individuals because group sober-living homes with six or fewer residents could operate in single-family districts if they met permitting and separation requirements, whereas boardinghouses of any size were barred from those districts. Moreover, group homes were not subject to the six-resident limitation that applied to boardinghouses. Since the challenged regulations treated disabled individuals more favorably than similarly-situated nondisabled individuals, the court denied Ohio House’s facial challenge under the FHA.
A disparate purpose facial challenge to a law under the FHA and FEHA must show that the law lacks a plainly legitimate sweep. Here, the court determined that nuisance laws alone would not have accomplished the same scope of objectives the City was trying to achieve through the separation requirement. The City’s goal was to avoid institutionalization and to ensure that disabled individuals could live in normal residential surroundings. The court acknowledged that nuisance laws alone could help combat excessive noise and second-hand smoke, but did little to prevent over-concentration of group-living facilities.
The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that 22 of 26 group home conditional use permit (CUP) applicants were disqualified by the separation requirement. The court found that denial of CUPs only showed that applicants seeking to operate group homes were adversely impacted, but not that individuals with disabilities themselves were impacted.
To establish prima facie disparate impact claim under the FHA, a plaintiff must present evidence of: (1) the existence of policy that is outwardly neutral; (2) a significant, adverse, and disproportionate effect on a protected class; and (3) robust causality that shows that the challenged policy, and not some other factor or policy, caused the disproportionate effect. Here, the court found that Ohio House failed to establish the separation requirement was outwardly neutral, thus defeating their disparate impact claim premised on the law being facially discriminatory.
Comments made by individual city employees suggesting a discriminatory purpose for adopting the law were deemed by the Court of Appeals insufficient to overturn the jury’s verdict upholding the City’s enactment of the law. While reports and statements from City officials indicated that it passed the law to protect residential neighborhoods from encroachment of disruptive land uses, the City explained that over-concentration of group-living homes produced negative impacts on parking, density, second-hand smoke and noise. Such issues were, the court found, legitimate concerns central to a city’s zoning goals.
Denial of Reasonable Accommodations Request Upheld Despite Claimed FHA Violation
A city violates the FHA if it refuses to make reasonable accommodations in rules and practices, when such accommodations are necessary to provide disabled individuals equal opportunity to use of a dwelling. To prevail, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that the plaintiff or his associate is handicapped within the meaning of the FHA; (2) that the defendant knew or should reasonably be expected to know of the handicap; (3) that accommodation of the handicap may be necessary to afford the handicapped person an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling; (4) that the accommodation is reasonable; and (5) that the defendant refused to make the requested accommodation.
The City denied Ohio House’s request for accommodations from the separation requirement. The Court of Appeals found substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the request was not reasonable, justifying the City’s refusal of a waiver. The City enacted the ordinance over concerns about over-concentration of sober living units in one area and to ensure that disabled individuals could reside in a comfortable residential environment. In addition, Ohio House’s proposed waiver for over 20 group homes would have caused a fundamental alteration to the zoning scheme.
California Planning and Zoning Law Claim Untimely
Finally, as to Ohio House’s challenge to the City’s separation requirement under the Planning and Zoning Law, the Court found that it was a facial challenge subject to the a 90-day limitations period. Ohio House argued that it was not challenging a “decision” governed by Government Code section 65009,” i.e., the law’s enactment and the denial of its CUP, but the exercise of municipal code enforcement power to cite, fine, and compel the closure of a dwelling. The court found that Ohio House’s challenge was to the facial validity of an ordinance, not an as-applied challenge of a final adjudicatory decision that would have triggered its own 90-day statutory limitations period. Because Ohio House filed its Planning and Zoning Law claim well after 90 days from the date the law was adopted, it was untimely.
Conclusion and Implications
The Ohio House decision demonstrates the high degree of deference that court’s generally give to a local government’s statutes and the high bar that claimants must meet in order to establish disparate impact claims. The court’s amended opinion is available online at: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/04/24/22-56181.pdf
