This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The City of Cambridge (D) enacted a zoning ordinance which divided the City's land into three kinds of districts: residential, business, and unrestricted. Nectow (P) owned land which, although it bordered on unrestricted land, was zoned for use for dwellings, hotels, clubs, schools, churches, and other similar uses. P's land, therefore, had very little value when limited to the purposes allowed by the zoning ordinance. At the time the ordinance was passed, P had a contract for the sale of the land. Because of the zoning restrictions, the buyer refused to perform the contract. P sued to enjoin D from enforcing the ordinance with respect to his property, arguing that such restrictions amounted to a deprivation of his property without due process of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the lower court, the case was referred to a master for factual findings. The master found that no real use of P's land could be made under the zoning scheme imposed by D and that restricting P's land to residential use did not promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of area residents. Nevertheless, the court entered judgment sustaining the ordinance. P appeals.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.