"[C]onsiderable latitude will be allowed a landowner in making changes in the original nonconforming use if the changes are not substantial ...."
How later courts described this case
- "[C]onsiderable latitude will be allowed a landowner in making changes in the original nonconforming use if the changes are not substantial ...."
- “[I]ntensification of a nonconforming use is permissible so long as the nature and character of the use is unchanged and substantially the same facilities are used.” (citation omitted)
- "If a grocer or other merchant is storing and selling merchandise of one type, [the] status as a nonconforming use should not be lost if he changes to another type of merchandise so long as the impact of the business on the neighborhood remains the same."
- "[N]ot every change in particulars or details in the method of a nonconforming use or in equipment, object or processes, in connection therewith constitutes an unauthorized change in the use."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHULTZ, Justice
(dissenting).
I disagree with the majority finding that the nursing home’s present use is merely an increase in its business of caring for the mentally infirm. The evidence clearly shows that there was a drastic change in the type of resident cared for in the home. Former employees testified that between 1982 and 1985 the elderly residents were replaced by younger patients with violent tendencies. When the ordinance was enacted, the home had residents with some mental problems, but the primary reason for their care was their age. Now, the younger residents require principally care for their mental conditions. Thus, I believe there has been a qualitative, as well as quantitative, change in the home’s resident population.
The nursing home’s present use does not predate the ordinance to qualify as a legal nonconforming use. I also find no merit in appellant’s other claims. I would affirm the trial court.
HARRIS and ANDREASEN, JJ., join this dissent.