City of Atlanta v. TAP Associates, L.P.

The majority holds that the trial court erroneously “rejected the city’s all-residential zoning of TAP’s property!, b]ecause we conclude that the developer has not met its burden of proving that the city’s zoning presents a significant loss that is unjustified by any public benefit. . . .” However, I submit that the trial court was authorized to find that TAP proved that the existing zoning of its property is unjustifiably confiscatory. Therefore, I dissent.

A zoning ordinance is presumptively valid, but, since Tuggle v. Manning, 224 Ga. 29, 33 (159 SE2d 703) (1968), this Court has recognized…