[brief] An owner no longer had the unilateral right or ability, or allow third parties by easement or permission, to use or develop an owner's property, without complying with zoning requirements and obtaining a zoning approval.  Property owners certainly could not by license or easement authorize another party to use or develop the owner's property for any second facility or use without being approved by the zoning officials/process.  With that said, the MLUL --- as one of its determinative procedures --- established in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 an administrative process by which an "interested party" can obtain a determination as to whether a ongoing use of a particular property is a current legal use or a legal pre-existing nonconforming use/facility.  [...] is the owner of [...]; but the owner and proponent of the off-site parking use of [...] is the [...].  As an entity "interested" in [...], [...] certainly had the status and right to file an administrative action as per N.J.S.A.40:55D-68.  As detailed in Cox & Koenig, New Jersey Zoning & Land Use Administration § 27–1.1, p. 588 (2023):  A Zoning Board of Adjustment is authorized to consider whether a particular use or structure qualifies for the protection afforded to legitimate nonconforming uses and structures.  This type of review may arise at the request of the owners of the purported use or structure in the form of an application for certification or, alternatively, it may be the result of an administrative action commenced by a person or entity objecting to the use or structure and desiring that it be eliminated.  This distinction between the [...] as owner and proponent of the "nonconforming use" and the Objector School is very important.  The [...] is “the owner of the purported nonconforming use” (the off-site parking use on [...]) by its “easement” claimed from the 1963 Agreement.  [...] is not the owner or proponent of that parking use/facility; the School is an interested party under N.J.S.A.40:55D-68 “objecting to the use or structure and desiring it be eliminated”.  The MLUL establishes the Zoning Board as the body required to hear the action, make a record for court review, and to apply its own local knowledge and expertise to make an informed determination.  The Zoning Board cannot deny jurisdiction or a hearing on some nonsensical basis that the issue belonged in Court (as asserted by plaintiff and, surprisingly, the Board Attorney).  As noted in Bell v. Tp. of Bass River, 196 N.J. Super. 304, 314 (Law Div. 1984) the Board of Adjustment is particularly well equipped to address nonconforming use disputes, which involves questions as to when a use commenced, the interpretation of zoning regulations then in force, and the interpretation of present regulations.  See also Cox, § 27-2.1 p. 595 (2023).  Stafford v. Stafford Zoning Bd., 154 N.J. 62, 69 (1998).  Thus, the School ([...]) --- although not an “applicant” for a “Certificate certifying that the use or structure existed before the adoption of an ordinance which rendered the use or structure nonconforming” --- was properly entitled and required under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-68 to bring an administrative action to the Zoning Board “objecting to the (nonconforming) uses or structure and desiring it be eliminated”.  The Zoning Board had the obligation to hear and decide the issue, with the record to be presented by the parties and properly did so.