Recent Indiana Case Addresses Zoning Interplay with Federal, State, and Local Laws
In Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC v. Nagireddy, 252 N.E.3d 418 (Ind. 2025), the Indiana Supreme Court heard an appeal from a case which stopped the building of a group home in a residential neighborhood. The group home, which would house up to ten residents with Alzheimer's and dementia, was being constructed in a neighborhood zoned for single-family dwellings. In the underlying case, the neighbors contended that this new group home would create a public nuisance because it violated the zoning ordinance. The neighbors insisted that Willow Haven should have gotten a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals and, because they didn’t, the new home could not be built.
At the trial and court of appeals levels, the neighbors won; however, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, stating that the neighbors did not have a reasonable likelihood of success at trial. The court noted that, even though the zoning ordinance did not consider the Willow Haven home to be a single-family dwelling, the zoning ordinance must also yield to state and federal law, both of which have special protections for the elderly and disabled. The court remanded the issue to the trial court to determine whether state or federal law protects this type of use. If so, the building of the group home can resume. If not, the group home cannot be built without first obtaining a variance.
Also in Willow Haven, the court addressed whether the court system was the proper means by which the neighbors should have pursued their action. Willow Haven argued that because the neighbors had not exhausted all administrative remedies, such as a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals, the court system was not a valid means for the neighbors. The court disagreed with Willow Haven and said that the neighbors could file suit with the court because they were not parties to nor given notice of the permit approval. The court, making a public policy decision, said it would not be reasonable to require a neighbor to exhaust all administrative remedies because that would require people to find and read every zoning and permit decision or risk not being able to bring a nuisance action at all. In this case, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that if the local ordinance approved a group home of this type, then no variance could have been sought by neighbors. As a result, the neighbors’ failure to seek a variance was not fatal to their case.
The author thanks summer legal clerk Caitlyn Bell for her helpful research and drafting assistance.