Santa Ana Weighs Anchor on Anchor Stone Christian Church

​On this rock, you may build your church – so long as it is zoned properly.
 
The U.S. Department of Justice recently weighed in on a controversy between the City of Santa Ana, California, and Anchor Stone Christian Church. The Justice Department alleges the city violated the church’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it denied the church’s zoning application to use space in the city’s professional district as a house of worship.
 
The Chinese-American church Anchor Stone purchased a property in 2022 in Santa Ana, intending to create a new, 99-seat house of worship. But because the district is zoned for professional uses, the church was required to obtain a conditional use permit (CUP). The city planning commission denied Anchor Stone’s request, despite the fact that, in the words of the Justice Department, “comparable secular assemblies like museums, science centers, and art galleries, are allowed to operate there by right without a discretionary permit.” There is even another church, operating under an approved CUP, right across the street in the same zoning district.
 
A subsequent appeal to the city council also failed.
 
Why the City of Santa Ana denied Anchor Stone’s application is less important here than the overall zoning scheme itself. That scheme places an enhanced burden on houses of worship relative to similar assemblies.
 
This flies in the face of RLUIPA, a federal law that prohibits local governments from "impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution." Yet, that seems to be exactly what Santa Ana’s land use regime entails.
 
According to the statement of interest filed by the Justice Department, a prima facie RLUIPA claim must show “that the challenged regulation makes an express distinction between religious and nonreligious assemblies, regardless of whether those assemblies are similarly situated.” The burden then shifts to the local government to show why such unequal treatment is justified.
 
The Santa Ana zoning plan specifically allows nonreligious assemblies like “art galleries" and "museums and science centers,” which are – along with churches – defined as “assembly uses” under the California Building Code.
 
Anyone who’s dealt with zoning laws – particularly in heavily populated areas like Orange County – will understand how difficult and onerous they can be. But there’s a difference between having to jump through hoops and facing seemingly arbitrary and capricious discrimination on the basis of religion (as opposed to art), which seems to be viewpoint discrimination. Such bureaucratic adjudications can be a slippery slope, and they’re the very reason laws like RLUIPA exist in the first place.
 
We’ll be keeping a close eye on this controversy and its implications for the First Amendment.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS