Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Residential Use -- Fraternity occupies multifamily house in violation of ordinance City of New Orleans v. Rucker; 672 So.2d 557 (Louisia~,a) 1996 In 1987, CGC Corporation acquired a building in New Orleans that was in a multifamily-residential zone. The building contained three apartment units that housed a maximum of four residents each. Starting in 1987, members of a local fraternity lived in the three apart- ments. Neighbors complained the property was being used as a fraternity house in violation of the city's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. CGC and the building's residents insisted the building was being used as a three-family residence. Inspections by the Department of Safety and Permits did not prove otherwise. In 1992, CGC applied to the department for a use and occupancy certifi- cate so it could use the building as a fraternity house. The request was denied. CGC did not appeal the ruling; instead, it agreed in writing to comply with the ordinance. A letter from CGC's attorney stated the building complied with the residential zone's requirements and that "[CGC] denies that there is any illegal or improper use of the property." In January 1993, the Board of Zoning Adjustment ruled the building was properly being used as a multifamily residence. In 1994, CGC sold the property to The Alumni Investment Co., Inc. (TALC). At the time, members of another fraternity occupied the building. In January 1995, an inspection revealed the building was being used not as three separate apartments, but as a fraternity house, in violation of the ordinance. After receiv- ing the violation notice, TAIC's attorney informed the city the necessary changes would be made and "[TAIC] fully desires to cooperate and voluntarily com- ply.'' However, no changes had been made by February, when a second inspec- tion was done. The city sued TALC. It asked the court for a temporary court order to pro- hibit use of the building as a fraternity house. According to TAIC, the city could not now prohibit the building's use as a fraternity house after allowing it to exist as such since 1987. Under state law, if a city had written notice of a zoning violation, but for more than two years allowed the violation to continue, the violation became an allowed noncon- forming use. TAIC referred to documents sent to the city from 1992 through 1993 as notice that the building was being used as a fraternity house. The 'court're.~cted TAIC's argument and granted the city the temporary court order. TAlC appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The city was entitled to a court order barring TAIC from using the building as a fraternity house. TAIC could not argue the fraternity house had become a ,cgal nonconforming use. Both CGC and TAlC assured the city in writing that they intended to comply with the ordinance. CGC denied the property was being used illegally (i.e., as