Among major cities in the United States, Houston is unique as the largest city in the country without zoning regulations. Houston voters rejected efforts to introduce zoning in 1948, 1962 and 1993. It is commonly accepted that “Houston Houston is” [ambiguous] due to the absence of zoning laws. However, Houston is similar to other major cities in the Sun Belt, all of which experienced most of their population growth in the automobile era. The largest of these cities, such as Los Angeles, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Dallas, Phoenix and Kansas City, have all expanded their urban footprint with Houston while having land use areas.    This zoning method is more flexible and contextually adaptable than standard Euclidean zoning, while being easier to interpret than other forms-based codes. A cumulative zoning plan divides a city into zones and then allows real estate to be used as long as the property is zoned for that use or for a higher use on the list. For example, under a cumulative zoning plan, a person would be allowed to build a residence in an area designated for commercial purposes because residential use would be higher on the list of zones. However, it would not be permissible to build a shopping centre in a residential area because commercial use would be “lower” on the list than residential use. Although the zoning order was initially declared unconstitutional by the lower courts, it was eventually upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. Secretary Hoover proudly led the nation`s towns and villages toward central planning, proclaiming that “the importance of this standard law in strengthening state zoning cannot be overstated.” The government printing company published it and sold 55,000 copies (for one nickel each) in the first two years.
Nineteen states had used the standard law as a model for their own legislation in 1925. Therefore, while recognizing that all types of areas are important, even vital, to a city`s economic well-being, zoning plans seek to limit the various land uses in a manner that limits the damage that uses can inflict on neighbouring properties. For example: the logic behind this scheme is simple. The purpose of zoning laws is to protect uses higher on this list from harm caused by uses lower on the list. Therefore, it is not necessary to prevent uses beyond those required by the area. For example: In the end, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Louisville order and ruled in Buchanan v. Warley that race-based zoning violated the Fourteenth Amendment;   Specifically, the Court found that the law violated the “right to contract” and the right to dispose of property. Despite the Buchanan decision, the city of Atlanta drafted a new race-based zoning ordinance, arguing that the Supreme Court had only enforced certain flaws in the Louisville ordinance. Even after the Georgia Supreme Court overturned Atlanta`s order, the city continued to use its race-based residential maps. Other communities have tested the boundaries of Buchanan; Florida, Apopka and West Palm Beach have drafted ordinances on race-based residential areas. Birmingham, Indianapolis, and New Orleans all passed race-based zoning laws, while Atlanta, Austin, Kansas City, Missouri, and Norfolk considered race in their “local zoning” decisions.
In some cases, these practices continued for decades after Buchanan.  The planned development of the units is grouped zoning, but allows for mixed uses. They include light commercial and industrial applications to merge a traditional downtown environment, but on a suburban scale. However, some have argued that such planned unitary development could be a deception to introduce commercial and industrial uses prohibited by the state`s zoning law; Some courts have considered such a “hoax” an “arbitrary and capricious abuse” of police power. [ref. Many people have been convinced by the idea that zoning laws are there to protect the value of their homes from a chicken slaughterhouse or an open bar next to their room. There are some advantages to that, but that is not the real reason we have zoning laws and other housing regulations. Dallas, Texas, is developing an optional zoning ordinance based on forms.
 As the concept of forms-based codes is relatively new, this type of zoning may be more difficult to implement. Many proponents of zoning root their arguments in their conception and even today directly in the language of police violence. If you look at your city`s zoning code, you will undoubtedly find the magic words of police power “health, safety and well-being” in the opening section. (We dropped the part about morality in general, because we found it boring.) As an example, the risk of fire is often cited as a reason to justify removal requirements – by separating buildings from each other, citizens are safer. Individuals have also successfully challenged zoning laws that were so onerous or onerous that they resulted in uncompensated expropriation of property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The court has also struck down zoning laws when governments have imposed them arbitrarily or capriciously, and plaintiffs can challenge First Amendment zoning laws when governments use those laws to suppress free speech. The court developed this doctrine in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986), ruling that zoning ordinances to regulate the side effects of adult entertainment, such as increasing crime or reducing property values, did not violate the First Amendment.
In Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991), the court upheld an order (not zoning legislation) requiring nude dancers to wear pasties or thongs. Here, citing Young and Renton`s logic, the court asserted that completely naked dancing was only marginally protected by the First Amendment and could therefore be regulated. The Court continued its application of the side-effect doctrine in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (2002). The case concerned a challenge to a ban on multi-purpose adult businesses in the same building. For serious Euclidean zoning reform, traditional neighborhood development regulations such as forms-based codes or SmartCode are usually necessary. The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld in 1926. The Euclid, Ohio, zoning ordinance was challenged in court by a local landowner on the grounds that restricting the use of the property violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Ambler Realty Company capitulated on September 13.
In November 1922, he filed a lawsuit against the village of Euclid, Ohio, claiming that local zoning ordinances effectively reduced the value of his properties. The village had designated an area owned by Ambler Realty as a residential area. Ambler argued that it would lose money because if the land could be leased to industrial users, it would have made much more money than as a residential area. Ambler Realty asserted that these violations involved an unconstitutional expropriation of property and denied equal protection under the law.  In Strong Towns, we talk a lot about zoning. Most people have a vague idea of what it is, but where does it come from? Why are we doing this? This is the first part of a three-part series in which we will explore the history of zoning, its growth over the past century, and its impact on building strong cities today. We owe zoning to neighbourhoods, which are filled exclusively with single-family homes and three-car garages. (Source: Johnny Sanphillippo) Smart zoning (or smart coding) is an alternative to Euclidean zoning. There are a number of different techniques for achieving smart zoning. Floating zones, cluster zoning, and Planned Unit Development (PUDs) are possible even if conventional Euclidean code exists, or conventional code can be completely replaced by smart code, as the City of Miami suggests.
The following three techniques can be used to achieve either a conventional separation of uses or a more environmentally friendly traditional neighborhood development, depending on how the codes are written. At the heart of this future plan were planners such as Harland Bartholomew and Fredrick Law Olmstead Jr.