A city's power to enact zoning regulation derives from the police power and, as such, zoning regulations must be reasonably necessary and reasonably related to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community

It is aptly said in 196 Cal. 211, 2113 is not under the segregating it to a 848 JoHNsToN v. CITY oF CLAREMONT[49 C. 2d to business establishments and enterprises already situated in unrestricted districts

In holding the act unconstitutional, the Court said that the state does not possess the power to "standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."

A municipal zoning ordinance provides an unreasonable restriction of business uses, and is void, where out of the whole acreage of the town of not less than two thousand five hundred acres it allows only one and one-tenth acres for business uses, which area is already occupied by existing businesses at the time of the passage of the ordinance, the balance of the …

—it was held that where an ordinance zoned a town into two districts, one residential and the other business, and made provision as to the latter, by designating a portion as an "unrestricted district," but such district was fully occupied by a gasoline station and restaurant, the effect was to grant a monopoly to these two businesses and therefore constituted an unreasonable …

In 1923, six years after California had first bestowed zoning power on municipalities, local residents incorporated Atherton to ward off an annexation by neighboring Menlo Park

In another case, however, the court held that such a comprehensive zoning ordinance must be reasonable.

While ordinances for spot zoning and those which create monopolies are examples of illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory zoning

Hence the instant case does not come within the principles of those decisions which hold an ordinance discriminatory where it makes the permitted area unreasonably small

[BOOK] America's Frozen Neighborhoods: The Abuse of Zoning