Challenging Real Estate Development Decisions: 3 Takeaways from a Recent Court Decision
Zoning laws govern almost every aspect of property use and require significant governmental involvement and approval. Most jurisdictions provide the ability to contest a zoning decision via litigation. In Virginia, parties able to demonstrate particularized harm can contest both the approval or denial of a zoning application. The Virginia Court of Appeals recently reviewed the standard for contesting zoning approvals in the July decision Pendleton House Limited Dividend Housing Associates LP v. City Council for the City of Alexandria et al. (July 7, 2026).
In Pendleton House, the City of Alexandria City Council granted a landowner and developer several zoning approvals for their application to redevelop a portion of the waterfront in historic Old Town. The application was opposed by various members of the community, including Pendleton House Limited (“Pendleton”), a nearby lessee who spoke against the application at the public hearing. The Court of Appeals ultimately affirmed the approval of the City Council. Here are three key takeaways from the decision:
The Court of Appeals reiterated the applicable standard for review of zoning approvals as “fairly debatable.” The Pendleton court emphasized the significant deference that governing bodies (such as the City Council) are provided with in reviewing zoning applications. The applicable standard, known as “fairly debatable,” requires that a locality identify any evidence in the record to demonstrate that their decision was reasonable. This decision therefore provides significant latitude to localities.
A party contesting a zoning decision may be denied the ability to introduce evidence as part of their appeal. In Pendleton House, the Court found that the City Council’s legislative record—or the compiled documents reviewed through the public hearing process—was enough to deny the appeal and dismiss it at a preliminary stage (on demurrer). Given this decision, Pendleton could not introduce its own evidence on why the decision was not fairly debatable.
A party’s participation in a public hearing can constitute legal due process. In Pendleton, the Court found that Pendleton’s comments against the application at the public hearing were enough to provide them with due process under the law (and no further evidence or review was required on appeal).
Feel free to reach out to me about your zoning inquiry or concern.
Theodora Stringham focuses her practice on bringing solutions-oriented representation and zealous advocacy to complex issues impacting individuals, organizations, and businesses. Ms. Stringham seeks to understand clients’ concerns and provide thorough and strategic options aimed at achieving their goals. She has been recognized for her work in the Real Estate, Labor and Employment, and Commercial Litigation practice areas, providing counseling and litigation support for a wide variety of concerns.