By Rick Brodsky
For decades, New Jersey property owners seeking use-variances for “inherently beneficial uses” have relied on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall Township as the lodestar for their applications. On July 13, 2026, however, the Court revisited the framework it established in Sica and significantly clarified the role that “negative criteria” — i.e., demonstrating that the variance will not be detrimental to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of a municipality’s zoning plan and ordinance — play in evaluating variance requests for such uses.
While the Court’s decision in Monarch Communities, LLC v. Township of Montville does not eliminate the special treatment afforded to inherently beneficial uses, it does make clear that an applicant cannot solely rely on the public benefits associated with the proposed use (i.e., the “positive criteria”). Rather, the applicant must independently demonstrate that the variance satisfies both “negative criteria” as well, a refinement of Sica designed to align the test established in that case with a 1997 amendment to the state’s Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)).
The Sica Standard for Variances and the Legislature’s 1997 Amendment to the MLUL
Under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), a use variance applicant must satisfy both the positive and negative criteria. As noted, the negative criteria require a showing that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zoning plan and ordinance.
In Sica, decided in 1992, the New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the question of “to what extent a use variance involving an inherently beneficial use must satisfy the negative criteria.” The Court developed the following four-step framework for how zoning boards should analyze both categories of criteria as to variance applications involving inherently beneficial uses:
- Identify the public interest at stake.
- Identify the detrimental effects that will ensue from the grant of the variance.
- Consider reasonable conditions on the use to reduce any detrimental effects from the grant of the variance.
- Balance the positive and negative criteria to determine whether the variance would cause substantial detriment to the public good.
The framework reflected the Court’s recognition that inherently beneficial uses, such as certain healthcare, educational, housing, and similar uses, serve an important public purpose. Accordingly, a municipality should not be able to defeat such a proposed use merely by identifying ordinary impacts associated with development.
While Sica‘s framework was fairly comprehensive and relatively clear, the Legislature subsequently chimed in with its own thoughts on the relationship between negative criteria and inherently beneficial uses, in the form of a 1997 amendment to the MLUL.
That amendment to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 stated that:
“[n]o variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section, including a variance or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use, without a showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
In other words, an applicant seeking a variance for an inherently beneficial use must not only establish the first negative criterion as to “detriment to the public good,” but it must also meet the burden of the second criterion, that it will “not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.” Notably, the Sica test only referred to the “public good” criterion, but did not include the “impair the intent and purpose” of the plan and ordinance standard.
The Monarch Case and Squaring Sica With the 1997 Amendment
In Monarch, the owner of a property that contained a farm and a single-family home sought a use variance to construct a senior living facility containing independent living, assisted living, and memory-care units. There was no dispute that the proposed development constituted an “inherently beneficial use” as defined in the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).
The zoning board ultimately denied the use variance request, however, citing concerns about density, impervious coverage, drainage, traffic, aesthetics, and the relationship between the proposed development and the Township’s planning policies.
The trial court reversed the denial and remanded the case to the Zoning Board to consider conditions for approval of the application. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination, and the Supreme Court then granted certification to address a distinct and critical question: How should the negative criteria for a use variance be applied to an inherently beneficial use after the Legislature amended the MLUL in 1997?
The Court concluded that the pre-amendment Sica framework did not fully account for that statutory language. Specifically, as noted, Sica expressly incorporated the first negative criterion into its balancing analysis but did not separately require an applicant to establish the second negative criterion concerning the zoning plan and ordinance.
The Court therefore modified the fourth step of the Sica analysis.
Going forward, the Court held, a zoning board must first determine whether the applicant has shown that the variance “will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.” If the applicant cannot make that showing, the variance cannot be granted. Only if that threshold is satisfied does the board proceed to balance the positive and negative criteria concerning substantial detriment to the public good.
What Monarch Means for Developers and Municipalities
For developers, the Monarch decision means that establishing an inherently beneficial use is not the end of the negative-criteria analysis. An applicant must provide affirmative evidence addressing the specific zoning framework applicable to the property. Simply arguing that senior housing, healthcare, education, or another inherently beneficial use serves the public good will not suffice.
For municipal zoning boards, meanwhile, the case provides greater authority to consider the municipality’s planning objectives. However, a board can’t just point to its master plan or ordinance and deny a variance application simply because it’s a variance. It must establish how the proposed variance relates to, and potentially conflicts with, the municipality’s actual zoning plan and ordinance.
For New Jersey developers and municipalities alike, Monarch represents an important refinement of the variance process. While inherently beneficial uses remain entitled to special consideration, the public benefit associated with such a use does not automatically overcome a municipality’s legitimate zoning plan.
If you have questions about how this case may impact your development or other land-use plans, please contact Rick Brodsky, Co-chair of Ansell.Law ‘s Land Use & Zoning practice.