Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 110 of 2006
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3207 (2026)

Zoning ordinance or decision; effect as prohibiting establishment of land use.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT


Act 110 of 2006


125.3207 Zoning ordinance or decision; effect as prohibiting establishment of land use.

Sec. 207.

    A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local unit of government or the surrounding area within the state, unless a location within the local unit of government does not exist where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff. July 1, 2006

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Kyser v. Kasson Twp, 786 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kyser v. Kasson Twp, 786 N.W.2d 543 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 12× “297a of the TZA, now MCL 125.3207 of the Zoning Enabling Act (ZEA).”
Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 786 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 10× “[11] II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW This Court reviews de novo issues of law.”
Ter Beek v. City of Wyoming, 846 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 2× “3207, which requires a showing of “demonstrated need” for a certain land use in order to overcome a zoning ordinance’s “effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government” — a need, the City contends, that Ter Beek cannot show, since…”
Peterson v. City of Grand Rapids, 182 F. Supp. 3d 750 (W.D. Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3207 states that: A zoning ordinance or zoning decision shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a local unit of government in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either that local…”
Houdek v. Centerville Twp., 741 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 125.3207. 2 But, like our Supreme Court in Adams II, supra at 685 n 11, because circumstances may change in the future, “our opinion should not be construed as foreclosing an ‘as applied’ challenge to the ordinance.”
Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 765 N.W.2d 14 (Mich. 2009). “297a (now recodified in nearly identical language as MCL 125.3207), superseded the analysis of Kropf on which the majority rebed; and (5) whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiffs their costs and expert witness fees.”
Anspaugh v. Imlay Twp., 729 N.W.2d 251 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “…found in MCL 125.297a was recodified with nearly identical language in § 207 of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. See MCL 125.3207.”
Int'l Outdoor Inc v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “In July 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court, alleging that defendant’s ordinance completely excluded an otherwise permissible use of land, was contrary to plaintiff’s right to equal protection under the state and federal constitutions, and amounted to…”
Kyser v. Kasson Twp., 761 N.W.2d 692 (Mich. 2009). “The PCLS argues that the subsequent enactment of MCL 125.3207, which prohibits townships from excluding lawful land uses, has superseded the Silva Court’s “very serious consequences” rule.”
Charter Twp. of White Lake v. Ciurlik Enter. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “But, defendant argued, even if the trial court held that a commercial composting facility was not a permitted use of AG-zoned land, the exclusionary zoning statute, MCL 125.3207, allowed its composting operation to continue because there was a demonstrated need for it and…”
White Lake Caddis, LLC v. White Lake, Charter Twp. of (E.D. Mich. 2025). · cites it 2× “1501-1507, the Substantive Due Process Clauses of the US Constitution and Michigan Constitution, and the Michigan Exclusionary Zoning Statute, Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3207 . Id. at PageID.”
Sandstone Creek Solar LLC v. Twp. of Benton (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “the interim zoning ordinance was invalid because Benton Township had failed to follow the requirements of the MZEA in enacting the interim zoning ordinance; Count II sought declaratory judgment that Benton Township had improperly imposed a moratorium on projects within the…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.