Several Colorado municipalities have sued the state challenging the constitutionality of landmark zoning reforms enacted in 2024. The lawsuit specifically concerns two new laws passed by the legislature and one executive order issued by Governor Polis related to those measures. The first law, HB 24-1313, is aimed at increasing housing density around transit. Under the law, certain cities and counties that meet the definition of a “transit-oriented community” based on their population and proximity to transit (commuter rail, light rail, and high frequency bus lines, or “bus-rapid transit”) must ensure that their zoning laws allow for a certain minimum housing density near transit. The other law, HB 24-1304, prohibits municipalities or counties that fall within one of Colorado’s five Metropolitan Planning Organizations from enacting or enforcing parking requirements at multifamily residential developments and adaptive re-use residential developments. Lastly, in May of this year, Governor Polis signed Executive Order D 2025 005, which prioritizes the awarding of discretionary grant funding towards localities that comply with the state’s housing reforms.
The lawsuit, filed in Denver District Court, was brought by Greenwood Village, Arvada, Aurora, Glendale, Lafayette, and Westminster, all home-rule cities under Article XX, § 6 of the Colorado Constitution. Under that provision, cities of at least two thousand people may enact a home-rule charter that supersedes state law on all “local and municipal matters.” The plaintiff cities allege that land use and zoning are matters of exclusive local concern and that, accordingly, HB 24-1313 and HB 24-1304 are unconstitutional and void within their boundaries. (For further discussion of this issue and HB 24-1313 generally, see our alert from April.) Furthermore, the cities argue that both HB 24-1313 and HB 24-1304 violate Article II, § 11 of the Colorado Constitution. That provision prohibits laws that impair the obligations of contracts or that are retrospective in their application. The suit maintains that the laws are constitutionally problematic in this regard because they invalidate existing development agreements between certain cities and developers.
The suit also alleges that HB 24-1313 specifically is unconstitutional for two other reasons. First, it argues that the law violates due process by limiting the plaintiff cities’ abilities to allow for public hearing on new developments. Next, it contends that the law violates the plaintiff cities’ duty to provide for referendum and initiative pursuant to Article V, §1(9) of the Colorado Constitution because it contains no allowance for deviation from its requirements in the event a referendum or initiative voids local legislation designed to implement HB 24-1313.
Lastly, the suit alleges that the governor’s executive order exceeds his authority because it imposes criteria in the award of grant funding beyond what is contemplated under state and federal law.
