Would the protection of agricultural lands used for vineyards be considered a “compelling government interest” under the substantial burden provision?
While no published court case has had the opportunity to determine whether legitimate attempts to protect agricultural lands (let alone vineyards) from nonconforming uses equate to a “compelling interest;” an excellent argument exists that it does. California, for example has recognized the importance of protecting agricultural lands and open spaces through the adoption of the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (aka the Williamson Act)[15] and defines “Prime Agricultural Land” as “Land planted with … vines … which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre.”[16] Municipalities that craft their agricultural land zoning rules to conform to the use standards set forth in the Williamson Act[17], should have little trouble defending an RLUIPA claim that denied a non-conforming religious use. For example, Napa County prohibits religious in
