Appellate Division finds a 2022 Berkley Township Ordinance invalid because the ordinance violated protections against the Federal Fair Housing Act and New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination's protections against age discrimination.
On July 31, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision in New Jersey Realtors v. Township of Berkeley, where it found that a municipal ordinance that created age-restricted housing by limiting ownership to individuals over the age of 55, violated the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s ruling invalidating the ordinances.
In 2022, the Township of Berkeley enacted Ordinance No. 22-13-OA, amending land use regulations to limit property ownership in age-restricted housing communities to individuals aged 55 and older. New Jersey Realtors (NJ Realtors) challenged the ordinance in court, arguing that it violated the FHA and NJLAD by discriminating based on familial status and failing to align with the exemption for age-restricted housing, which only requires that the housing be occupied by someone 55 or older.
The trial court ruled in favor of NJ Realtors, stating that the ordinance violated the FHA and NJLAD by restricting ownership and was therefore preempted and invalid. The Appellate Division agreed.
In its decision, the Appellate Division explained that the FHA exemptions for housing for older persons pertain to occupancy restrictions, not ownership. The ordinance's ownership restriction did not comply with these exemptions and thus violated the FHA by discriminating based on familial status.
The court also found that the ordinance violated the NJLAD prohibition against housing discrimination based on familial status, with an exemption for housing for older persons. A 2019 amendment to the NJLAD clarified that this exemption applies only to occupancy, not ownership. Therefore, the ordinance's age-based ownership restriction was deemed a discriminatory housing practice that violated the NJLAD.
Finally, the Appellate Division noted that the ordinances cannot conflict with federal and state laws. As such, because the ordinance’s ownership restrictions conflicted with the anti-discrimination provisions of the FHA and NJLAD, the ordinance was invalid.
This ruling may have significant implications for age-related ownership restrictions in the future. The decision differentiates between permissible occupancy restrictions and impermissible age-related ownership restrictions. It recognizes the rights of adult children to purchase homes in age-restricted communities for parents over 55 and allows for estate planning transfers. The decision may also lead to higher sale prices in age-restricted communities by expanding the pool of potential buyers, benefiting current homeowners but potentially making purchases more challenging for new buyers due to increased prices.
Kemeny, Ramp & Renaud, LLC is committed to pursuing vigorous, cost-effective strategies designed to secure the best possible results. The trial lawyer and real estate attorneys at our firm are available to assist you. Call us at (732) 853-1725 to schedule a consultation.
Comments