The New Jersey Supreme Court has reopened the doors to Affordable Housing Litigation

The New Jersey Supreme Court has unanimously held that the administrative process run by COAH in which municipalities show compliance with affordable housing obligations is no longer working and municipalities are no longer protected from builder’s remedy lawsuits in which a developer sues to build housing at a greater density than permitted by ordinance. The Court’s ruling came after COAH failed to adopt Third Round regulations as previously ordered. Third Round Regulations were originally due in 1999, but have been delayed for more than 15 years by court challenges and COAH’s failure to reach a consensus on the adoption of new regulations.

The Court agreed that Builder’s Remedy suits will now be heard by the courts thereby bypassing the COAH administrative process.

So as not to punish municipalities the Court has:

  1. Delayed implementation of the Order for 90 days to allow an “orderly transition;”
  2. Established a transition process and time table for municipalities to have their affordable housing plans deemed compliant by the Court.
    During the first 30 days following the order’s effective date courts will hear declaratory judgment actions by municipalities seeking to have their affordable housing plans declared constitutionally compliant ;
  3. Courts can provide municipalities with immunity from Builder’s Remedy lawsuits ( the equivalent of a COAH affordable housing plan certification) but that immunity will not be granted for an “undefined” time period and will be subject to periodic review. Municipalities can be stripped of their immunity if they abuse the process and do not achieve compliance;
  4. A court can only permit a Builder’s Remedy after it has the opportunity to address the constitutionality of the municipal affordable housing plan and found it to be “wanting.”

Municipalities must now rush to go to Court within 120 days and seek a declaratory judgment that their affordable housing plans are constitutionally compliant otherwise they will lose protection from Builder’s Remedy litigations.

As the law continues to evolve on these matters, please note that this article is current as of date and time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. The content and interpretation of the issues addressed herein is subject to change. Cole Schotz P.C. disclaims any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication to the fullest extent permitted by law. This is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or refrain from acting upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining legal, financial and tax advice. For further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to your firm contact or to any of the attorneys listed in this publication.

Join Our Mailing List

Stay up to date with the latest insights, events, and more

Check all areas of law you are interested in receiving e-newsletters and alerts about:(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Our Practices

EACH REPRESENTATION IS A FRESH CANVAS

Practices

Our Industries

EXPERIENCE THAT GOES WHERE OUR CLIENTS GO

Industries