Title 40: Municipalities and Counties

Section 1: Legal Paraphrase

Title 40 of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated is the State's principal body of local government law, governing the organization, powers, and operation of New Jersey's 564 municipalities and 21 counties. It prescribes the forms of municipal government, most notably the Optional Municipal Charter Law, or Faulkner Act (N.J.S.A. 40:69A), which offers alternative mayor-council, council-manager, and small-municipality plans. The Title grants municipalities their general ordinance-making and police powers, including the general-welfare authority of N.J.S.A. 40:48-2, and it contains the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D), the State's comprehensive planning and zoning statute. It also organizes county government, including the boards of county commissioners formerly known as boards of chosen freeholders (N.J.S.A. 40:20 and 40:41). Because it allocates authority between state and local government and among local officials, Title 40 underpins every municipal ordinance, land-use decision, and local election in New Jersey.

Section 2: ELI-10 Explanation

Imagine your town is one giant school. The mayor is the principal, the town council is the group of teachers, and every house, park, and shop is a classroom. Title 40 is the big manual that explains how to run that school. It says how the principal and teachers get chosen, what rules they are allowed to make for the neighborhood (like where buildings can go or how much rent a landlord may charge), and how the leaders must vote before a new rule counts. It also makes sure the town plans ahead, leaving room for playgrounds, schools, and homes for families who do not have a lot of money. If the leaders break the manual, the courts can step in and say, "No, you have to follow the rulebook." Title 40 is how New Jersey keeps its towns and counties fair, organized, and running smoothly.

Section 3: General Application & Case Example 1

How It Is Applied

Title 40 governs local governments themselves — municipalities, counties, their elected and appointed officials, boards, and employees — and, through them, every person who lives, works, or owns property in New Jersey. Its principal mechanism is the ordinance: N.J.S.A. 40:48 authorizes municipalities to adopt ordinances for the good government, health, and welfare of the community, and N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 specifically empowers them to make and enforce "such other ordinances, regulations, rules and by-laws" as may be necessary and not contrary to state law. Municipalities also act through land-use approvals under the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D), through the alternative government forms, initiative, and referendum of the Faulkner Act (N.J.S.A. 40:69A), and through county boards acting under N.J.S.A. 40:20 and 40:41. Because local power is delegated power, courts review ordinances and municipal actions for consistency with the enabling statutes and the State Constitution, and they invalidate local laws that exceed delegated authority or conflict with higher law.

Case Example

• Case Name & Citation: Inganamort v. Borough of Fort Lee, 62 N.J. 521 (1973)
• Statute Applied: N.J.S.A. 40:48-2
• Brief Summary: Landlords in Fort Lee challenged the Borough's 1972 rent leveling ordinance, which created a rent control board authorized to set maximum rents, arguing that municipalities lacked power to regulate rents. The Supreme Court, quoting N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 in full, held that municipal rent control is a valid exercise of the police power delegated to municipalities by that general-welfare provision, recognizing the acute housing shortage as an emergency justifying rent leveling. The Court emphasized that such ordinances are constitutional only if they permit landlords a fair and reasonable return on their investment, and it set operating guidelines for rent control boards. The decision firmly established N.J.S.A. 40:48-2 as the statutory foundation of rent control throughout New Jersey and illustrates how broadly courts construe the municipal ordinance power.
• Source Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1973/62-n-j-521-0.html

Section 4: ELI-10 Application & Case Example 2

Real World Example (Explained Simply)

Picture a town where many families want to live, but the only new houses being built are huge and very expensive, and landlords keep raising rents. The leaders can use the Title 40 rulebook in two ways. First, the rulebook lets them pass a neighborhood rule (an ordinance) that stops rents from rising unfairly — like a school rule saying the snack stand cannot charge $10 for a cookie. Second, the rulebook has a whole chapter about land: it says towns must plan their land so there is room for everyone, including families who cannot afford the biggest houses. If a town tries to keep out ordinary families by only allowing fancy, pricey homes, the families can go to court, and a judge can order the town to open its doors. New Jersey's rulebook makes every town share the job of housing all kinds of families — rich, middle, and low income alike — so that no single town can say, "Build it somewhere else."

Case Example

• Case Name & Citation: Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92 N.J. 158 (1983)
• Statute Applied: N.J.S.A. 40:55D (Municipal Land Use Law)
• Brief Summary: This second "Mount Laurel" decision came after Mount Laurel Township's revised zoning ordinance still failed to provide any realistic opportunity for low- and moderate-income housing. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that, under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq., every developing municipality's zoning must afford a realistic opportunity for a fair share of the region's present and prospective need for low- and moderate-income housing. The Court grounded the obligation in the MLUL's mandate that zoning promote the general welfare, announced that a "builder's remedy" would be awarded to developers proposing genuinely inclusionary housing when municipalities fail to comply in good faith, and ordered remedies against municipalities practicing exclusionary zoning. The decision transformed New Jersey land-use law and remains the foundation of the Mount Laurel doctrine enforced through the courts today.
• Source Link: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1983/92-n-j-158-0.html