DCPVAR-0000-02812 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The same result has been reached in numerous other jurisdictions and is clearly the prevailing view. Four such cases are cited in the footnote below.8 The holdings of two others are here quoted: "An entire tract [laid out, designed and improved for occupancy by mobile homes] is generally regarded as within the exemption of an existing nonconforming use, although the entire tract is not so used at the time of the passage or effective date of the zoning law." Appeal of Tadlock, 261 N.C. 120, 134 S.E.2d 177 at 180 (1964). "Where a trailer -court project is partially completed when zoning regulations become effective, and the evidence is clear as to the extent of the project, the completed project will ordinarily determine the scope of the nonconforming use." County of Sarpv vs. Petsch, 172 Neb. 263, 109 N.W.2d 388 at 391-392 (1961). If the Zoning Inspector's interpretation were applied to a nonconforming apartment building, there would be an abandonment or discontinuance of a nonconforming use every time one of the apartments became vacant and a new tenant moves in. Such a contention has been vigorously rejected by the courts.9 The law of nonconforming uses will not permit the slow butchering of the hog. In the apartment building example, it may be argued that tenants do not take their apartment with them when they move out and new tenants move in. In a mobile home park, tenants who move 8 See Blundell vs. West Helena, 258 Ark. 123, 522 S.W.2d 661 (1975); see also Youngsville vs. Zoning Board, 69 Pa. 282, 450 A.2d 1086 (1982); see also Lampasona vs. North Stonington, 6 Conn. App. 237, 504 A.2d 554 (1986); Trailer City vs. Council Bluffs, 218 N.W.2d 645 (Iowa 1974). 9 See 83 AM JUR 2d Zoning & Planning §688 and the case law cited at its footnotes 12 and 13. 12