Federal law restricts land use regulation that burdens religious exercise, supplementing constitutional protections with statutory standards that are easier for claimants to invoke.
Substantial burden. A land use regulation may not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise unless it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. What counts as substantial is contested; repeated denials, unreasonable delay and conditions that make the use practically impossible have qualified.
Equal terms. Religious assemblies may not be treated on less than equal terms with non-religious assemblies or institutions. Circuits differ on the comparator, but a code permitting private clubs and lodges by right while requiring a special use permit for a place of worship is the recurring problem.
Nondiscrimination and exclusion. Separate provisions bar discrimination among religions and the total exclusion of religious assemblies from a jurisdiction.
Individualised assessments. The substantial burden provision applies where the government makes individualised assessments — which describes most special use permit and variance processes.
Practical guidance for municipalities. Compare how the code treats comparable secular assembly uses; keep the record focused on traffic, parking and site impacts rather than on the character of the congregation; give reasons; and decide within stated timeframes. Remarks by officials and by residents at hearings are quoted back in litigation.