Also known as: non-conforming use · nonconforming uses · non-conforming uses · nonconformity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A preexisting land use that was lawful when begun but violates zoning restrictions enacted later. The owner generally holds a vested right to continue the use. That right may be lost by abandonment, discontinuance for the statutory period, or in some jurisdictions by amortization after a reasonable period.
Noah Nakamura has operated a small manufacturing plant on his property for fifteen years. The city then rezones the area residential and orders immediate closure. Because the plant was lawful when established, Nakamura retains the right to continue the nonconforming use until he abandons it or the statutory period expires.
Nina Nielsen owns a corner store that became nonconforming after new commercial zoning. The city passes an ordinance requiring all such stores to close after eight years. Nielsen argues the period is unreasonable given her recent substantial investment in renovations.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nyah Ndlovu operates an adult bookstore that predates a new zoning ban on such uses. The borough enacts an ordinance prohibiting all live entertainment in the zone. Ndlovu claims the bookstore qualifies as a protected nonconforming use that cannot be eliminated immediately.
Nathaniel Newman seeks to build a contemporary residence on land zoned for traditional styles. The city denies the permit citing aesthetic rules adopted after he purchased the lot. Newman contends his planned design is a lawful nonconforming use protected by prior approvals.
Nordic Ventures owns a historic terminal building designated a landmark after purchase. The city bars alterations that would change its nonconforming commercial use. The company claims the restrictions destroy its vested right to continue the preexisting nonconforming use.
Nile Shipping holds a parcel used for storage that became nonconforming after residential rezoning. The city initiates eminent domain to acquire the land for redevelopment. Nile Shipping asserts that its vested right in the nonconforming use must be compensated in the taking.
Zoning regulates use of land, not ownership. A change in ownership alone does not terminate the right to continue a nonconforming use.
Supporting sources
No. Protection of preexisting property rights generally prevents immediate elimination. The owner retains a vested right to continue the use unless it is abandoned or amortized after a reasonable period.
Supporting sources
Reasonableness depends on the nature of the use, the owner's investment in the property, and the length of the phase-out period provided by the ordinance. The period must not amount to a taking without just compensation.
Supporting sources
Substantial expansion or intensification that constitutes a change in use may lose protection. Insubstantial repairs or natural expansion in limited contexts, such as diminishing assets, may be permitted.
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…