Brief Fact Summary. A restaurant converted to a nightclub, which was impermissible under a newly enacted zoning ordinance.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. An existing nonconforming use can only continue of if it is a continuance of substantially the same kind of use as that which the premises were devoted at the time of the passage of the zoning ordinance. Nonconforming uses may not be enlarged except where the change is so negligible or insubstantial that it does not warrant judicial or administrative interference.
Most significantly, the Court stated that an existing nonconforming use will be permitted to continue only if it is a continuance of substantially the same kind of use as that to which the premises were devoted at the time of the passage of the zoning ordinance.
View Full Point of LawIssue. May the nonconforming use of property continue if it is not substantially the same kind of use as that to which the premises were devoted at the time of the passage of the relevant zoning ordinance?
Held. No.
A nonconforming use is the use of a premise that lawfully existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance and which is maintained after the effective date of the ordinance, even though it does not comply with the use restrictions applicable to the area in which it is situated. The property has the right to continue, despite the restrictive zoning provisions.
To limit nonconforming uses, the method used is either to prevent any increase or change in the nonconformity. An existing nonconforming use can only continue of if it is a continuance of substantially the same kind of use as that which the premises were devoted at the time of the passage of the zoning ordinance. Nonconforming uses may not be changed except when the change is so negligible or insubstantial that it does not warrant judicial or administrative interference.
Converting the restaurant to a nightclub was a substantial, and therefore impermissible, change. The entire character of the business has been altered.
Discussion. Nonconforming uses of property are inconsistent with the objective of uniform zoning. So, strict limitations are placed upon nonconforming uses.