The opinion
OPALA, J.,
concurring.
¶ 1 The proof adduced at nisi prius supports the court’s conclusion that Triangle Fraternity’s use of the premises will be substantially the same as that of its predecessor. The trial court’s finding against Triangle Fraternity is clearly contrary to the weight of the evidence.
¶ 2 The right to continue a preexisting, nonconforming use is ascribed (affixed) to the soil and hence accrues to all succeeding owners. Schultz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 144 Conn. 332, 338 , 130 A.2d 789, 791 (1957). A “mere change in ownership does not destroy the [right to enjoy the] preexisting nonconforming use.” Harmel Corp. v. Members of the Zoning Bd. of Review, 603 A.2d 303, 306 (R.I.1992). See also Carbone v. Vigliotti, 222 Conn. 216 , 610 A.2d 565 (1992); Urban v. Planning Bd., 124 N.J. 651 , 592 A.2d 240 (1991); Town of Covent'ry v. Glideman, 429 A.2d 440 (R.I.1981); Watts v. City of Helena, 151 Mont. 138 , 439 P.2d 767 (1968); Jackson v. Pottstown Zoning Bd., 426 Pa. 534 , 233 A.2d 252 (Pa.1967).
*9 ¶ 3 I hence concur in the court’s pronouncement.