Also known as: prior nonconforming use · prior nonconforming usage · nonconforming use · nonconforming uses · grandfathered use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A land use that was lawful when established but that does not comply with later-enacted zoning restrictions. The owner generally acquires a vested right to continue the existing use despite the rezoning. The right may be lost through abandonment, discontinuance for the statutory period, or in some jurisdictions through a reasonable amortization ordinance.
Luis Equipment, Inc. has run an outdoor storage yard for thirty years under the original zoning. After the town rezoned the area for townhouses, the council passed an ordinance requiring all such yards to close at once. Luis sues, claiming the yard qualifies as a protected prior nonconforming use. The court holds that the vested right prevents immediate termination without a recognized loss mechanism.
Lakeside Communities LLC has operated a mobile home park for forty years under prior low-density zoning. The city rezones for luxury condominiums and adopts an ordinance forcing all nonconforming parks to close within six months. Lakeside challenges the short deadline. The court finds the six-month period unreasonable and protects the park as a vested nonconforming use.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Swift Wireless erected a cellular tower in 1995 on agricultural land. After nearby residential development prompted rezoning to low-density residential use, the city enacted a fifteen-year amortization ordinance. Swift has maintained continuous operation and invested heavily in upgrades. The court upholds the vested right because the tower predates the zoning change and has not been abandoned.
A business owner operated an adult bookstore in a commercial zone for many years. The borough later banned all such uses and refused to recognize the existing operation as protected. The owner sues, arguing the use was lawful when begun. The court recognizes the vested right to continue the prior nonconforming use.
A railroad terminal owner seeks to build a large office tower above the historic structure after the city designates it a landmark. The designation prevents the new construction even though the terminal predates the landmark law. The owner claims the restriction destroys the vested nonconforming use. The court balances the vested right against the public interest in preservation.
A homeowner obtains a permit to build a modern residence under existing rules. The city later adopts an aesthetic ordinance requiring traditional designs and revokes the permit. The owner has already poured the foundation in reliance on the prior approval. The court finds a vested right to complete the nonconforming structure.
The use becomes a nonconforming use but the owner retains a vested right to continue it. The municipality cannot eliminate the use immediately merely by rezoning.
Supporting sources
Loss occurs only through voluntary cessation for the statutory period combined with intent not to resume. An involuntary closure compelled by a government order does not extinguish the vested right.
Supporting sources
The period must be reasonable in light of the nature of the use, the owner's investment, and the time needed to recoup that investment. An unreasonably short period may constitute a taking.
Supporting sources
No, provided the fundamental character of the use remains the same and there is no expansion of the physical footprint or intensification beyond the original use.
Supporting sources
No. A shutdown required by superior state environmental mandates, accompanied by maintenance of the property and statements of intent to resume, does not constitute abandonment.
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…