Laserfiche WebLink
Los Angeles, California <br />The Los Angeles ordinance regulates adult arcades, bookstores, cabarets, motels, <br />motion picture theaters, adult theaters, massage parlors, and sexual encounter <br />establishments. These establishments are characterized by their emphasis on specified <br />sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. <br />The ordinance prohibits the establishment of an adult entertainment business within <br />1,000 feet of another such business or within 500 feet of any religious institution, <br />school or public park. Los Angeles determined that adult uses, in concentration, result <br />in blighting conditions. <br />A 1984 amendment to the ordinance added that an adult entertainment business may <br />not be located within 500 feet of any lot in an agricultural or residential zone, or <br />within "limited commercial" zones, unless approved by exception. 2' No more than <br />one adult use may be located within any building containing another adult entertain- <br />ment business. <br />Town of Islip, New York <br />Islip's ordinance is noteworthy in that it has been the subject of litigation reviewed <br />by the New York Court of Appeals.27 Islip defines adult uses to include adult <br />bookstores, drive-in theaters, cabarets, motels, theaters, massage establishments, and <br />peep shows. As in Boston, adult uses are characterized by their exclusion of minors <br />by reason of age. <br />The zoning ordinance restricts the location of adult uses to light industrial districts by <br />special exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Adult uses are allowed as -of -right <br />in Industrial Districts, and prohibited from locating within 500 feet of any area zoned <br />26 Various amendments have been made to the ordinance, including a provision prohibiting, after March 6, <br />1988, the continued operation of adult businesses located within 500 feet of a residential zone unless a <br />conforming site is not "reasonably available" elsewhere. This provision has been successfully challenged <br />on appeal; the businesses argued that the city has not provided them with a sufficient number of possible <br />relocation sites, abrid21ng their First Amendment rights. [Topanga Press v. City of Los Angeles, U.S. Court <br />of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 989 F.2d 1524, as reported in Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, Vol. 45, No. <br />9, September 1993). <br />' Town of Islip v. Caviglia, 542 NYS, 2d 139, t <br />i <br />EVER00112 <br />13 <br />