Also known as: non-conforming use · nonconforming uses · nonconforming use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A land use that was lawful when established but does not comply with later-enacted zoning restrictions. The owner generally holds a vested right to continue the existing use. That right may be lost through abandonment, discontinuance for the statutory period, or in some jurisdictions through amortization ordinances that require termination after a reasonable period.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lakeside Communities LLC has operated a mobile home park for forty years on land originally zoned low-density residential. After the city rezoned the area for high-density condominiums, it adopted an ordinance requiring all nonconforming parks to vacate within six months. Lakeside sues. The court rules for Lakeside because the park was a lawful preexisting use that the city cannot eliminate immediately.
Luis Equipment Inc. has run a construction equipment yard for thirty years. After rezoning to a townhouse district, the town adopts an ordinance requiring all outdoor storage yards to cease within five years. Luis challenges the phase-out. The court upholds the ordinance because five years supplies a reasonable period for the owner to recover its investment.
A business opens an adult bookstore in a commercial zone that later bans such uses. The borough enforces the new restriction against the existing store. The owner claims the ordinance violates free speech. The court examines whether the zoning leaves adequate alternative sites while respecting the preexisting use.
A city condemns several properties for redevelopment and argues that nonconforming uses receive no special protection. Owners of long-operating businesses claim the action destroys vested rights without compensation. The court weighs whether the takings clause requires heightened scrutiny when preexisting uses are targeted.
A homeowner builds a distinctive residence before the city adopts new design standards. The city denies a permit for further work under the updated rules. The owner asserts the structure is a protected nonconforming use. The court considers whether aesthetic regulations can lawfully limit continuation of the preexisting design.
A railroad terminal is designated a landmark after decades of operation. The owner seeks to build an office tower above it but the city blocks the plan. The owner argues the restriction destroys the economic viability of the preexisting use. The court evaluates whether the landmark rules constitute a taking of the nonconforming rights.
The use becomes a nonconforming use. The owner generally retains a vested right to continue the existing use despite the new restrictions.
Supporting sources
No. Municipalities generally cannot eliminate a preexisting lawful use immediately upon rezoning. Termination requires abandonment, statutory discontinuance, or a valid amortization period.
Supporting sources
…the zone is both benefited and restricted from exploitation, presumably without discrimination, except for permitted continuing nonconforming uses. The restrictions may be designed to maintain the general character of the area, or to assure orderly development, objectives inuring to the benefit of all, which property owners acting…
…offering live entertainment were permitted in the commercial zones. Those establishments, the court held, were permitted, nonconforming uses
…a portion of the property is in violation of the existing zoning regulations, and in refusing to find that such use is a valid nonconforming use
…legislative body, if the result is not oppressive, arbitrary or unreasonable and does not infringe upon a valid preexisting nonconforming use
…further excavation as being violative of a zoning ordinance. This failed because appellants were found to be "conducting a prior non-conforming use
The ordinance must give the owner a reasonable period to recover its investment. Reasonableness turns on the nature of the use, the owner's capital outlay, and the length of the phase-out.
Supporting sources
No. Loss of nonconforming status through discontinuance ordinarily requires voluntary cessation. An involuntary shutdown compelled by government order does not constitute abandonment.
Supporting sources
Not if the core use remains the same. Internal changes that enhance the original activity without expanding the footprint or creating a wholly new use preserve the vested right.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the period is reasonable in light of the owner's investment and the useful life of the structure. A uniform, evidence-based phase-out does not automatically violate vested rights.
Supporting sources