Laserfiche WebLink
June 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin <br />nonconforming use belonged to the Park Owner and the nonconformity was <br />the Park Owner's use of the land as a mobile -park home. While the individual <br />structures in the park were nonconformities in themselves, they made up parts <br />of the whole, said the court. <br />Having found that the nature of the nonconforming use was the Park <br />Owner's use of the property as mobile -home park, the court concluded that <br />the City's interpretation of the nonconforming use ordinance to apply on a lot - <br />by -lot basis was arbitrary, capricious, and illegal in that: (1) it deprived the <br />Park Owner of its constitutional right to enjoy its property, as the resolution <br />effectively would destroy the mobile -home park; and (2) the City allowed <br />mobile homes to be moved on and off the property for decades without <br />interpreting or enforcing the nonconforming use ordinance on a lot -by -lot <br />basis, and only did so now seemingly without reason and with an apparent <br />"disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles." <br />See also: Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 232 Ariz. 562, <br />307 P.3d 989 (Ct. App. Div. 2 2013). <br />See also: Eddins v. City of Lewiston, 150 Idaho 30, 244 P.3d 174 (2010). <br />See also: Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Village of Lodi, 2013 -Ohio - <br />4973, 2013 WL 6021470 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Medina County 2013), ap- <br />peal allowed, 138 Ohio St. 3d 1432, 2014 -Ohio -889, 4 N.E.3d 1050 (2014) <br />and judgment aff'd, 142 Ohio St. 3d 351, 2015 -Ohio -790, 30 N.E.3d 934 <br />(2015). <br />Compare: City of Foley v. McLeod, 709 So. 2d 471 (Ala: 1998) (holding <br />that zoning ordinance, which prohibited enlarging or expanding nonconform- <br />ing use of land and prevented repair or restoration of nonconfouuiities that <br />were damaged beyond 50% of their replacement value, applied to replacement <br />of existing mobile homes at nonconforming mobile home park). <br />Case Note: <br />In its holding, the court made clear the distinction between nonconforming structures— <br />which cannot, under Mississippi law, be replaced or rebuilt with another nonconform- <br />ing structure—and nonconforming use of property, such as that here—which has not <br />been destroyed or changed. <br />4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />