holding that the expansion of a nonconforming use cannot be permitted where it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public
How later courts described this case
- holding that the expansion of a nonconforming use cannot be permitted where it is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the public
- invalidating as unconstitutional a zoning provision which prohibited any increase in the number of dwelling units in an apartment building lawfully nonconforming as to use
- invalidating as unconstitutional a zoning provision that prohibited any increase in the number of dwelling units in an apartment building that was lawfully nonconforming as to use
- invalidating as unconstitutional a zoning provision which prohibited any increase in the number of dwelling units *539 in an apartment building lawfully nonconforming as to use
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I do not consider an increase in the number of apartments in a non-conforming apartment house to be a natural expansion. Nor do I feel that the zoning ordinance which provides that a non-conforming multiple dwelling shall be limited to the specific number of dwelling units presently contained therein is unconstitutional as applied to this or any other property. The ordinance restricting the aggravation of a non-conforming use is enacted to protect the health, moral safety and general welfare of the neighborhood. These objectives are adversely affected by the majority’s determination.
Mr. Justice Pomeroy joins in this dissenting opinion.