# Triangle Fraternity v. City of Norman, Ex Rel. Norman Board of Adjustment

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 15, 2002 · 73 O.B.A.J. 2914

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796373

## Case

- **Full name:** TRIANGLE FRATERNITY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF NORMAN, Ex Rel. NORMAN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Defendant/Appellee, and University Neighborhood Association, a Not for Profit Corporation; McKinley Elementary School Parent Teacher Association (PTA); Marjorie (Mrs. Duane) Roller; Judy Gibbs Robinson; E. O’Neil Robinson; Timothy Miller; Blake Gumprecht; David Dollarhide; And Victoria Dollarhide, Intervenors/Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 15, 2002
- **Citations:** 73 O.B.A.J. 2914; 63 P.3d 1; 2002 OK 80; 2002 Okla. LEXIS 81; 2002 WL 31357266
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Opala
- **Judges:** Kauger, Hargrave, Watt, Hodges, Summers, Boudreau, Winchester, Opala, Lavender
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796373

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9796373. Public record. Not legal advice.