Data from a case study of piecemeal zoning change suggest that the decisions of citizen zoning boards of appeal are neither lawless nor ineffective. The bulk of requests that come before them are for minor dimension or use variances and are typically allowed unless there is local opposition. The proportion of changes granted varies with the degree of clash between a proposed use or structure and the preexisting local land use-the “character of the community” (particularly in single-family residential areas). Expressions of opinion (positive or negative) by current neighbors and other community members are given heavy weight in zoning decisions.
Despite criticism of zoning boards as defective and illegitimate legal institutions and calls for their abolition, they have remained popular and extremely resistant to change. This is because zoning boards have evolved beyond their explicit rule enforcement functions to also play important dispute-settling and community maintenance functions in the contemporary urban setting. These functions of zoning can only be understood in terms of a participatory model of legal process where legal rules serve to identify situations and trigger sociopolitical processes as much as they serve as substantive norms to be enforced.