In Calif., if a local zoning ordinance is undisputedly ambiguous, is the ordinance to be interpreted in favor of the land owner?

Under California law, courts will apply a "plain meaning" rule to any legislative enactments, including a zoning ordinance. ONLY IF, there is no unambiguous plain meaning interpretation or if such plain meaning interpretation would yield an absurd result, will the courts intervene to interpret the statute. (Castaneda v. Holcomb, 114 CA3d 939,942.) The court's function is to determine the legislature's intent in crafting the statute, and then resolve the ambiguity to effectuate that intent. (Harbor Fumigation, Inc. v Co. of San Diego Air Pollution Control Dist., 43 CA4th 854, 860; Mount Sutro Defense Comm. v Regents of Univ. of Cal, 77 CA3d 20, 35.)

Thus, in California, interpretation of ambiguity does not automatically favor the land owner, but rather favors the legislative intent behind the ordinance. This principle is emphasized by the fact that California courts will even give weight to the local jurisdiction's interpretation of its own ambiguous code, although that deference is not automatic or complete. Yamaha Corp. of America v State Board of Equalization, 19 C4th 1, 12.)

Hope this information helps clarify the matter for you.