On July 13, 2026, the NJ Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Monarch Cmtys., LLC v. Twp. of Montville, which revised the legal standard that had governed NJ land use variances since 1992. The change gives greater authority to municipal zoning boards to reject variance applications for “Inherently Beneficial Uses” and seeks to ensure that review of such applications aligns with a 1997 amendment to New Jersey’s Multiple Land Use Law (MLUL).
New Jersey’s Multiple Land Use Law (MLUL)
New Jersey’s MLUL statute dictates the authority of zoning boards to issue land use variances “in particular cases for special reasons” as well as defining a certain category of uses which it labels “Inherently Beneficial Uses.” These include hospitals, schools, child care centers, and senior living communities.
According to the MLUL, in order for a variance to be properly granted, even for an Inherently Beneficial Use, the applicant for the variance must show that the use would satisfy both positive and negative criteria laid out in the statute. In particular, the applicant must show that the variance “can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good” and “will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.” Prior to a 1997 amendment to the statute which made this explicit, however, it was ambiguous whether and to what extent Inherently Beneficial Uses had to satisfy these criteria.
The Sica Standard
The ambiguity of the MLUL as to Inherently Beneficial Uses prior to 1997 led the New Jersey Supreme Court, in 1992’s Sica v. Bd. of Adjustment, to create a balancing test that zoning boards should use when determining whether to grant an Inherently Beneficial Use variance; namely, that a board should “weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine whether, on balance, the grant of the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good.” Thus, the Court elected to ignore the MLUL’s second negative criteria, i.e., that the variance must not “substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance,” when it came to variances for Inherently Beneficial Uses.
In response to this standard, the NJ Legislature amended the MLUL in 1997, making it explicit that even Inherently Beneficial Uses must satisfy both negative criteria for the applicant to be granted a variance. Until the NJ Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Monarch Cmtys., LLC v. Twp. of Montville, however, the Sica Standard remained in place.
Monarch Communities
The Court finally revised this standard in the recent Monarch Cmtys., LLC v. Twp. of Montville, a dispute that arose between the Township of Montville Zoning Board and Monarch Communities, LLC regarding a land use variance to construct a 165-unit senior living facility, an inherently beneficial use under the MLUL, on land zoned exclusively zoned for single family homes. The Zoning board found the proposed variance would “result in a substantial detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance.” After a series of lawsuits, the NJ Supreme Court granted the Zoning Board’s petition for certification and examined whether the Appellate Court’s application of the Sica Standard was proper in light of the MLUL’s 1997 amendment.
The New Jersey Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision in which it recognized the significance of the 1997 amendment as well as the “longstanding legislative objective” to encourage municipal zoning determination through planning, not through granting individual variances. Ultimately, the Court issued an augmented version of the Sica Standard, which dictates that, before a zoning board can balance the MLUL’s positive and negative criteria, it should “determine whether the applicant has made a showing that the variance… will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance. If the applicant has not made such a showing, the variance may not be granted.” Thus the Court, in accordance with the MLUL, revises the law to allow municipal zoning plans and ordinances far more deference, and makes it far easier for zoning boards to deny variance applications for Inherently Beneficial Uses.
After nearly three decades of disparity between legislative and judicial law on land use variances, the NJ Supreme Court has handed down an opinion uniting the two, significantly increasing the power of zoning plans and requiring that Inherently Beneficial Uses be unable to substantially contravene those plans.
