There can be no question that the public interest is strong and supports the regulation. . . . Provisions on the abandonment of nonconforming use are common in zoning statutes and ordinances and are upheld as a valid exercise of police power. We also agree with the trial court that the substantive zoning requirements in issue advance legitimate state interests. Light and ventilation within these apartments will be compromised. The risk of fire spreading from building to building is increased by undue proximity.
Small children have no place to play except sidewalks or streets.
Tenants' automobiles cannot be accommodated on site. Again, the public interest supports the applicable zoning regulations. This leaves only plaintiff's claim that the zoning ordinance provisions have denied him all economically beneficial use of his lot and thus worked a taking. The record in support of this claim is exceedingly sparse, consisting of only the stipulated fact that plaintiff could not restore the preexisting use and the findings of the superior court in support of the variance that a hardship was created. On this sparse record, plaintiff cannot make out his claim.