What You Need to Know

This decision reinforces a key principle in New Jersey land use law:

• State licensing does not override municipal zoning. A facility licensed by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) must still comply with all applicable local zoning ordinances.
• Property owners should seek zoning approvals or variances before operating any regulated residential or business facility in a restricted zone.
• The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) continues to provide municipalities broad authority to determine land use within their boundaries, even where overlapping state regulations exist.

Introduction

In State v. Ruhnke, No. A-1549-23 (Super. Ct. App. Div. June 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, in a per curiam opinion, affirmed the conviction of a property owner for unlawfully operating a cooperative sober living residence (“CSLR”) in a residential zone in violation of a local zoning ordinance. The decision makes clear that a state-issued license does not exempt property owners from complying with local zoning laws.

The Background

The case arose from the defendant’s operation of a CSLR on property located in West Caldwell, New Jersey. The property consisted of two detached single-family dwellings. One was occupied by the defendant and his wife as their primary residence and the other was used as a CSLR for individuals recovering from drug or alcohol addiction. CSLRs are residential settings serving only as a home for individuals recovering from drug or alcohol addiction.

Under West Caldwell Ordinance § 20-4, land in the residential district may be used only for purposes permitted in that zone. The township’s zoning official issued a notice of violation, finding that the CSLR constituted a non-permitted use.

While the defendant appealed that violation, he also applied to the DCA for a Class F license to operate the CSLR under N.J.A.C. 5:27-1, which governs rooming and boarding houses. The DCA approved the license, but the township issued a second notice of violation, maintaining that the CSLR use was still impermissible under local zoning laws.

The DCA informed the defendant that its licensing approval did not supersede local zoning requirements, noting that applicants are expected to ensure zoning compliance independently. The township subsequently filed a complaint, and both the municipal court and the Law Division found the defendant guilty of violating the zoning ordinance.

The Appeal

On appeal, the defendant argued that N.J.A.C. 5:27-2.1, which governs the licensing of rooming and boarding houses, granted the DCA exclusive authority over the regulation of CSLRs and that municipal zoning approval was therefore unnecessary. The Appellate Division disagreed.

Applying the two-court rule, the appellate panel noted it would not disturb concurrent factual findings by the lower courts absent a clear showing of error. The court reviewed the legal issues de novo, however, affirming that the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) authorizes municipalities to regulate the use of land through zoning ordinances.

N.J.S.A. 40:52-1 provides municipalities with authority to license and regulate certain businesses (including boarding and rooming houses), but such municipal licensing authority is distinct from, and does not substitute for, zoning approval under the MLUL. The court emphasized that the MLUL and N.J.S.A. 40:52-1 operate in separate spheres of municipal authority: one governing land use, the other regulating business activity.

Even if the defendant was initially unaware of the zoning requirements, the court noted that the DCA’s correspondence explicitly stated that compliance with local zoning laws remained the property owner’s responsibility.

Takeaways

The Appellate Division’s decision in State v. Ruhnke serves as a reminder that state and municipal regulatory frameworks operate independently. Municipalities retain the power to control land use through zoning, while the DCA’s licensing authority ensures proper operation of certain facilities.

Pending legislation would explicitly subject DCA‑regulated rooming and boarding houses to municipal land use regulation and require proof of certain local approvals before issuance of a Class F CSLR license. As of December 18, 2025, Assembly Bill A3981 passed the Assembly and was received in the Senate on May 29, 2025 (referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation); it has not been enacted with a link to the official status page A3981 status and the Assembly Appropriations statement A3981 committee statement.

For a copy of the decision, please contact Michael O’Donnell at modonnell@riker.com or Keshav Agiwal at kagiwal@riker.com.