whatever hardship the applicant suffered arose from his own acts in using residentially zoned property for law offices
How later courts described this case
- whatever hardship the applicant suffered arose from his own acts in using residentially zoned property for law offices
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REILLY, Chief Judge
(concurring):
In rejecting petitioners’ application for a zoning variance which would enable them to continue to use their building at 2019 R Street, N.W., for law offices, the Board was dealing with a piece of property which has not been occupied solely for residential purposes for a period of more than 45 years; one owner opening a dentist’s office *309 there in 1928; his successor using it for the practice of medicine; and a third converting it into the chancery annex of a foreign government. The building in question is situated in a city block where there are several parcels devoted to nonconforming uses. While the Board finds support in the Zoning Regulations for distinguishing between law offices and medical offices, I find this distinction lacking in any rational support. In view of the restraints imposed by our own rules of decision 1 upon particular divisions of this court, however, I agree that the disposition of this case is controlled by Clouser v. David, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 12 , 309 F.2d 233 (1962).
. M.A.P. v. Ryan, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 310 (1971).