Nonconforming use refers to a use that was allowed under zoning laws at the time it was established, but is no longer allowed due to subsequent changes in those regulations. However, new zoning laws do not affect the use of properties built using old zoning laws.
For example, if an old commercial property resides in what has become a developed residential neighborhood, it does not need to adjust to the residential zoning requirements.
One limitation of nonconforming use, however, is that property owners cannot expand the use of their properties. Therefore, they cannot make additions or remodel after a new zoning law takes effect.
For example, if a nonconforming use property is destroyed in a fire, the property cannot rebuilt using the old zoning laws. Rather, the property owner must now adhere to the new zoning laws.
An exception to nonconforming use is if such a property is declared a nuisance. In this case, the city may require the property owner to adjust to the specifications of the new law.
Case Law As It Relates to Nonconforming Use
Case Review: Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1930)
The case, Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1930) 211 Cal. 304., involved an example of nonconforming use.
A property owner (Jones) owned a sanitarium. The sanitarium had been open for many years when the City of Los Angeles decided to enact new zoning ordinances. One of those ordinances made it unlawful for any person or business “to erect, establish, operate, maintain, or conduct any hospital, asylum, sanitarium, home, retreat, or other place for the treatment of insane persons, or those suffering from mental or nervous diseases.” The City of Los Angeles subsequently attempted to shut Jones’ sanitarium down. Jones sued.
The Superior Court concluded that the City of Los Angeles could not impose a new zoning ordinance upon a business that existed prior to the ordinance. It ruled in favor of Jones.
Case Review: City of Stanton v. Cox (1989)
The case, City of Stanton v. Cox (1989) 207 Cal.3d 1557., involved a dispute over nonconforming use.
The City of Stanton proposed a zoning ordinance that would restrict adult businesses from being located within 500 feet of a church, school, park, playground, or residential area; and within 1,000 feet of any other adult business. The city requested a permanent injunction to close all adult businesses that violated this ordinance.
After initially losing, the city appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals contended that it was unlawful for the City to impose such strict and punitive measures against legal businesses. Such measures would nearly make it impossible for such a business to continue. Therefore, it ruled against the City.