A zoning variance is a discretionary approval that allows a specific property to deviate from one or more requirements of the applicable zoning by-law or ordinance without changing the underlying zoning category. Variances are granted by a local appeal body (a board of adjustment, committee of adjustment, or zoning board of appeals, depending on the jurisdiction) after a public hearing process.
The variance does not amend the zoning by-law itself; it grants site-specific relief that applies only to the parcel in question. Because variances are discretionary and site-specific, they are inherently less certain than code-compliant development and more susceptible to neighbour opposition and political dynamics.
The two principal categories of variance are area (or dimensional) variances and use variances, and most jurisdictions apply different legal standards to each. An area variance seeks relief from a numerical standard (setback, height, lot coverage, parking count) rather than from the permitted use categories.
A use variance seeks permission to conduct a use not otherwise permitted by the zoning category (for example, placing a retail shop in a zone designated for light industrial). Use variances are subject to much more stringent standards in most jurisdictions because they authorize an activity that the municipality has deliberatively excluded from the zone; many planning regimes restrict or prohibit use variances entirely on the grounds that use restrictions should be changed through rezoning, not by case-by-case variance.
The legal standard for granting a variance, regardless of type, typically requires the applicant to demonstrate hardship: that the strict application of the zoning standard causes the owner an unreasonable burden that is unique to the property's specific circumstances, rather than a generalized inconvenience applicable to all properties in the same zone. Self-created hardship (where the landowner purchased the property knowing of the restriction, or the owner's proposed plan is simply too ambitious for the parcel) is typically disqualifying.
Hardship must arise from the physical characteristics of the land (irregular lot shape, topography, size) or from pre-existing lawful conditions that are now non-conforming under a changed by-law.
Developers must choose between pursuing a variance and pursuing a rezoning based on the nature of the deviation sought, the timeline available, and the political environment. A variance is generally faster and cheaper for minor dimensional relief (a setback that is 1.5 metres short of the requirement, a height that exceeds the limit by a small margin); rezoning is the appropriate tool for large-scale changes to permitted uses or significant departures from the zoning framework.
In Ontario, minor variance applications to the Committee of Adjustment are a common middle path for small adjustments that meet the four-test criteria (minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, consistent with the intent of the official plan, and consistent with the intent of the zoning by-law). Developers who bring neighbourhood support (letters, no objections from adjacent owners) and evidence of code compliance except for the specific relief sought are significantly more likely to succeed than those who present variance requests as pure entitlement.
Open a learning-mode session biased toward this topic and closely related concepts. No timer, instant feedback after each answer, and a deeper explanation on any question you want to explore further.
Start the quiz →