Source: https://www.jbwpc.com/Articles/Zoning-and-Land-Use-General/VESTED-RIGHTS-AND-NONCONFORMING-USES-BACKGROUND-AND-RECENT-DEVELOPMENTS.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:17:17+00:00

Document:
The plaintiffs bought land in Butts County for development. At the time of purchase, the zoning allowed construction of homes with a minimum size of 1,500 square feet. The plaintiff submitted plats showing houses of that size. The county approved the plat and the plaintiffs expended money developing the properties consistent with the existing zoning. Thereafter, and prior to requests for building permits, the county amended its zoning ordinance to require a minimum house size of 2,000 square feet in that zoning district. The plaintiffs later sold lots in the subdivision to builders. The county denied building permits to builders because the proposed houses did not comply with the 2,000-square foot minimum under the amended zoning ordinance.
The question presented was whether the builders who purchased the property from the developer had a vested right to develop the property consistent with the minimum size house of 1,500 square feet rather than the 2,000 square feet required under the amended ordinance.
The court reasoned that there was a crucial difference between vested rights and nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses are uses or structures existing prior to the enactment of an ordinance which renders them nonconforming. A use which is merely contemplated for the future, but not yet realized as of the effective date of an amended ordinance, is not a nonconforming use.
A vested right is the constitutionally protected right to a future use. It cannot be divested without the consent of the person to whom it belongs. The court thus concluded that a vested right is earned by the owner's substantial change of position in relation to the land, including substantial expenditures or in incurring substantial obligations. That gives the owner the right to develop property in accordance with prior zoning restrictions. But vested rights are personal to the owner and are not transferable with the land. The choice by the owner to sell the property is voluntary, but if it chooses to sell, then it sells with the knowledge that the vested right is not transferable to a purchaser since the lots in the subdivision were conveyed to the builder after the zoning ordinance was amended. Since a vested right to build under the former zoning ordinance was not transferable, a purchaser is subject to the new restrictions of the amended zoning ordinance.
2. Café Risqué/We Bare All Exit 10, Inc. v. Camden County, 273 Ga. 451, 542 S.E.2d 108 (2001).
3. North Georgia Mountain Crisis Network, Inc. v. City of Blue Ridge, 248 Ga.App. 450, 546 S.E.2d 850 (2001).
4. Meeks v. City of Buford, 275 Ga. 585, 571 S.E.2d 369 (2002).
The issue in this case is whether a property owner obtained a vested right to use undeveloped investment property in accordance with a variance granted in 1985, 14 years earlier. In finding the earlier variance no longer valid, the court relied on the rule that a property owner must make a substantial change in position or make substantial expenditures or incur substantial obligations in order to acquire a vested right. In this case, the mere reliance on a variance without showing substantial change in position by expenditures or other obligations, does not vest a right in the land owner to develop in accordance with the earlier variance which would no longer be valid by virtue of a subsequently adopted zoning ordinance.
5. Cooper v. Unified Government of Athens-Clarke County, 277 Ga. 360, 589 S.E.2d 105 (2003).
6. Union County v. CGP, Inc., 277 Ga. 349, 589 S.E.2d 240 (2003).
8. Corey Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. The Board of Zoning Adjustments of the City of Atlanta, 254 Ga. 221, 327 S.E.2d 178 (1985).
9. Flippen Alliance for Community Empowerment, Inc. v. Brannan, 267 Ga.App. 134, 601 S.E.2d 106 (2004).
"To be vested, in its accurate legal sense, a right must be complete and consummated[.]" "[P]rior nonconforming uses are not absolutely protected from subsequent zoning regulations." A governing authority can require a nonconforming use to be terminated in a reasonable time. Georgia law permits municipalities to terminate, over time, pre-existing nonconforming uses. "A property owner cannot move a 'grandfathered' use from one location to another." Moreover, courts have consistently held that ordinances prohibiting the expansion of a nonconforming use to new lands are enforceable. "[I]t is incumbent upon one seeking to use the property for a non-conforming use after the rezoning ordinance to show that his prior use of the property was legal and not unlawful."
10. The Ansley House, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 260 Ga. 540, 397 S.E.2d 419 (1990).
When a nonconforming use of a major structure or a major structure and premises in combination is discontinued for a continuous period of one (1) year, the structure and premises in combination, shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Such restriction shall not apply if such cessation is as a direct result of governmental action impeding access to the premises.
11. Barker v. County of Forsyth, 248 Ga. 73, 281 S.E.2d 549 (1981).
12. Henry v. Cherokee County, 290 Ga. App. 355, 659 S.E.2d 393 (2008).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.