When Regulations and Religious Freedom Collide : SPECIAL REPORT: Battles over zoning codes that limit where houses of worship can locate and how they can operate are on the rise, showing what happens . . .

The notice from the city of Fountain Valley smacked of religious persecution to Pastor Mariano Yeo.

The congregation of about 30 Filipino and Chinese immigrants was ordered to “immediately cease” religious activity in its tiny storefront location or face jail time and thousands of dollars in fines.

“It sounds like I’m living in a Communist state,” Yeo remembered thinking. “This is America.”

His Shalom Alliance Fellowship had been ensnared by a local zoning ordinance forbidding religious institutions in commercial areas, a law crafted in part to maximize the city’s tax base.

The Fountain Valley situation typifies an increasingly common dispute around the Southland that pits residents intent on preserving the quality of life in their neighborhoods--and lawmakers keen on increasing tax revenues--against worshipers who want a place to pray.

The land-use battles, including a struggle that ended with a new San Fernando Valley mosque looking much like a California mission, have mobilized an alliance of libertarians and religious conservatives who say that nothing short of their religious freedom is under fire.

“It is the single biggest battle of religious liberty in America today,” said Steve McFarland, director of the Center for Law and Religious Freedom, a Virginia-based association made up of 4,000 Christian lawyers. “Among the significant religious liberty infringements in our country, it is the most widespread, pernicious and disturbing.”

Land-use laws largely regulate development, dictating everything from the size of buildings and the number of parking spaces at a mini-mall to the type of business and housing that can move into a neighborhood.

The regulations also affect churches, synagogues and other houses of worship, often dictating where they can be built, what they should look like and even when they can operate.

Religious leaders contend that these laws--however well-meaning--often end up sapping their ability to worship where and how they please.

City officials insist that religious discrimination plays no role in their decisions. In fact, they say, they treat churches just like everyone else.

Local regulation of religious groups is needed to preserve the quality of life in communities, said Brian Fisk, planning director for Westminster. Traffic, parking, aesthetics and an adequate commercial base are all legitimate concerns, he said.

“There’s religious activities that you do in your own home that don’t impact on other people,” Fisk said. “But when you invite other people and they start to congregate in that neighborhood, that starts to impact other people.”

The local church-city battles have reached such proportions that state and federal lawmakers have intervened.

State Sen. Joe Baca (D-Rialto) has introduced legislation that would bar local government from imposing land-use laws on religious groups unless it can demonstrate a “compelling governmental interest” to do so. In Congress, the House passed a similar religious freedom measure in July. The bill now awaits Senate action.

An Array of Disputes Across the Southland

A look at some of the impassioned church-and-state clashes playing out in city council chambers and courtrooms reveals that:

* A Palos Verdes Peninsula church sued the city of Rolling Hills Estates earlier this year over the right to purchase a vacant theater and convert it into a place of worship. City officials had banned churches from commercial areas in favor of tax-generating businesses.

* It took nine years of wrangling before the Islamic Center of Northridge was permitted to build a mosque, but there was a catch: The building had to be stripped of its cultural symbols. Muslims had to forgo a traditional dome and were ordered to build a mosque using Spanish-style architecture to better blend into the neighborhood.

* A Culver City-based Muslim group has battled for the last four years to rehabilitate a rundown building as a mosque. Leaders of the King Fahd Mosque agreed to a host of concessions, including one involving the minaret--the tower from which Muslims are traditionally called to prayer.

During the holy month of Ramadan, devout Muslims look for a lighted minaret to signal the breaking of the day’s fast. But city officials argued that a lighted minaret would be an eyesore, and insisted that it remain dark. The mosque has been completed but still stands empty, pending yet another city decision on whether the group can tear down an interior wall to expand a prayer area.

* In Los Angeles, the City Council sparked controversy two years ago when it ordered a group of about a dozen Orthodox Jews to stop holding prayer services in a Hancock Park home. Area residents had complained that the services would set a precedent and add to neighborhood traffic congestion. A lawsuit has since been filed against the city, alleging that the ban violated religious rights.

* Four years ago, Buddhists from the Myanmar Society of America sought to build a monastery on five acres next to a Mormon church in Yorba Linda. The group won the approval of the Planning Commission, but the City Council voted against the project due to intense public opposition by residents who said they feared the monastery would bring unwanted traffic and noise.

A year later, the Buddhists went through the same roller coaster process, this time in an area near Chino. Again, they found an ideal location and secured the blessing of technical experts, only to be rejected by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors.

The group has now given up hope of constructing anything that resembles the temples of their homeland and is settling for converting the interiors of two homes in Azusa into a prayer and meditation space.

“It’s a pity,” said Tin Htoon, a spokesman for the group. “People should be happy to see people more religious.”

Zoning Codes Vary Widely in the Region

City zoning codes in Southern California vary, with some limiting religious groups to certain areas and others permitting them anywhere, subject to a conditional-use permit.

The problem, experts say, is that when municipalities draw up land-use guidelines, religious freedom is not typically factored in.

“[Planning boards] are so used to looking at things through the filter of what they’re used to regulating that when religious value comes into play, it’s given no weight, or not the heightened weight that it really deserves,” said Cole Durham, a law professor at Brigham Young University in Utah who specializes in religious freedom issues.

Many conditions imposed on religious groups are legitimate, he said. But cities must be careful to make sure that mere “inconvenience” does not end up hampering “some of the highest values of the republic,” he added.

Experts point to a number of causes for the growth in church-and-state zoning conflicts.

In California, the passage of Proposition 13, which limits the property tax revenue reaped by cities, left many strapped for cash and reluctant to give up valuable commercial space for non-tax-generating churches.

The increasing diversity of faiths in California also makes it less likely for government decision makers to appreciate and, therefore, accommodate the specific needs of different religions, especially those of minority groups, said Tony Arnold, a law professor and zoning issues expert at Chapman University in Orange.

A Brigham Young study found that Jews, small Christian denominations, nondenominational churches and other minority faith groups are vastly overrepresented in reported church zoning complaints.

Most groups beset by burdensome zoning requirements elect not to pursue legal action because of the expense and out of a desire to keep the peace.

“Our purpose is to teach people and show people goodness,” said Osman Kaldirim, a board member of the King Fahd Mosque. “That’s what we are all about.”

But in the Fountain Valley case, Yeo called on attorneys for the American Family Assn., a national conservative Christian organization. With the group’s help, he filed suit against the city, arguing that secular uses, such as meeting halls, lodges and fraternal organizations, were permitted in commercial zones, while churches were excluded.

City officials backed down, ending their ban on churches, and the congregation has returned.