A variance is administrative relief from the strict application of a zoning ordinance, typically requiring the applicant to show that unique physical characteristics of the property (not simple economic hardship or the applicant's own preference) create practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in complying with the ordinance, and that granting the variance will not harm the surrounding neighborhood or undermine the ordinance's purpose. Boards distinguish between area variances (dimensional relief, such as a reduced setback) and use variances (permitting an otherwise prohibited use), with use variances generally held to a stricter standard.

Disputes arise both from denied applicants seeking judicial review of a board's decision and from neighbors challenging a granted variance as an abuse of discretion, arguing the board failed to apply the correct hardship standard, made findings unsupported by the record, or was influenced by improper considerations. Judicial review of zoning board decisions is typically deferential, often limited to whether the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence, rather than a fresh determination of whether the variance should have been granted.

Because judicial review of a zoning decision is narrow, Juricratic models a variance appeal primarily as a record-sufficiency question rather than a merits relitigation, with the dial reflecting the probability a reviewing court finds the board's findings adequately supported rather than the probability the reviewing court would have decided the variance question the same way itself.

Applicants build a hardship record before the zoning board, unique lot shape, topography, or other physical constraints, to survive the deferential standard of review, while opposing neighbors focus their challenge on gaps in the board's findings and on showing the claimed hardship is self-created or purely economic rather than tied to the property's physical characteristics.