Case Name: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLIOTT A. GOTTFURCHT, Defendant and Respondent
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1976-10-07
Citations: 62 Cal. App. 3d 634
Docket Number: Crim. Ext. No. 76-198
Parties: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLIOTT A. GOTTFURCHT, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Third Series
Volume: 62
Pages: 634–642

Head Matter:
[Crim. Ext. No. 76-198.
Second Dist., Div. Four.
Oct. 7, 1976.]
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ELLIOTT A. GOTTFURCHT, Defendant and Respondent.
Counsel
Burt Pines, City Attorney, and Ward G. McConnell, Deputy City Attorney, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Thomas R. Sheppard, Laurence K. Gould, Jr., and Davis H. von Wittenberg for Defendant and Respondent.
Weisman & Dreisen, David P. Kassoy, Jules L. Rabat, Greenberg & Glusker, Arthur N. Greenberg, Garret L. Hanken, Roberts, Carmack, Johnson & Harmer and Jack Earle Roberts as Amici Curiae.

Opinion:
Opinion
FILES, P. J.
The People appeal from an order of the municipal court, dismissing a criminal prosecution after an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint. After the appeal had been heard and decided in the appellate department of the superior court we ordered it transferred here pursuant to rule 62 (a), California Rules of Court, to settle an important question of law.
At the time the complaint was filed, defendant was the operator of the "Carriage House," a hotel located in the "R5" Multiple Dwelling Zone in the City of Los Angeles. The complaint charged that defendant had permitted certain businesses, including a bar and restaurant, photo service, and art gallery, to be maintained and conducted at the hotel, not incidental to the hotel nor as a service only to the persons living therein, in violation of subdivision 2 of subdivision A of section 12.12 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code.
The theory urged by the defendant, and relied upon by the trial court, is that this ordinance is an illegal and unconstitutional restriction on the individual rights of prospective patrons of the kind of hotel here in question. For the reasons set forth below, we reject that theory. As we shall point out, the ordinance before us is not a restriction on the rights—constitutional or otherwise—of individual patrons; it is . concerned only with the use to which an owner may put his real property.
The ordinance which defendant is accused of violating is a zoning ordinance limiting the kind of business which he may conduct. Zoning ordinances, as such, have long been sustained as legitimate exercise, of the pólice power. (See Lockard v. City of Los Angeles (1949) 33 Cal.2d 453, 460 [202 P.2d 38, 7 A.L.R.2d 990].) The business allowed on defendant's property is that of a hotel or apartment hotel, which may include "incidental business" conducted "only as a service to persons living therein." This description of the permissible use of the premises is further defined by the provisions that the incidental business "is conducted within the main building, the entrance to the business is from the inside of the building, and no sign advertising such business is visible from outside the building."
The limitations in this zoning ordinance have to do with how the defendant holds himself out to the public, and not which members of the public may enter the premises to avail themselves of the goods or services offered. It is to be anticipated that some persons who are not hotel guests may enter the premises for the purpose of patronizing the "incidental" business, as for example to eat a meal or purchase candy or tobacco. There is nothing in this ordinance which would authorize the defendant to refuse service to such persons or require him to ascertain whether or not they were or intended to become registered guests of the hotel.
There is a clear distinction between a small coffee shop designed and equipped to serve the number of hotel guests who may reasonably be expected to eat breakfast there, and a banquet room which the proprietor is offering to reserve for wedding receptions or service club luncheons. There may well be business activities which fall between the extremes and thus are less easily classified. But this zoning ordinance, like many others which list the kinds of activities which are permitted in a particular zone, is readily interpreted when viewed in the light of the purpose of the zoning plan.
We point out that the ordinance, and the complaint, refer to- the conduct of a "business." This refers to operations which constitute a regular course of business, and not the mere casual performance of a service. In the context of this ordinance, dealing with hotels and apartment hotels, the word "business" implies a regular course of actions, directed to, and intended to attract, the public at large. The character of the business will be identified by such features as the design and location of the facility within the premises, size in relation to the size of the hotel, the type of goods and services offered, and the manner and extent to which it is advertised. The existence of some casual patronage by nonhotel guests would not, by itself, constitute the violation charged.
The complaint before us properly charges a violation of the ordinance. The true character of the business conducted by defendant must be determined as a factual matter at the trial.
The order of dismissal is reversed.
Kingsley, J., concurred.
Section 12.12 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code provides in part as follows:
"The following regulations shall apply in the 'R5' Multiple Dwelling Zone:
"A. USE—No building, structure or land shall be used and no building or structure shall be erected, structurally altered, enlarged, or maintained, except for the following uses, and, when a 'Supplemental Use District' is created by the provisions of Article 3 of this Chapter, for such uses as may be permitted therein:
"1. Any use permitted in the 'R4' Multiple Dwelling Zone.
"2. Hotels or apartment hotels (including guest cottages), in which incidental business may be conducted, but only as a service to persons living therein, and provided such business is conducted within the main building, the entrance to the business is from the inside of the building, and no sign advertising such business is visible from outside the building.