Opinion ID: 1936177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Estoppel of town board.

Text: Appellants argue that they are entitled to the priornonconforming-use doctrine enunciated in several Wisconsin cases. [8] This nonconforming use comes about because of the invalidity of the July 6, 1970, zoning ordinance and the contention that appellants expended over $60,000 in purchasing and improving the property in question after the permit was initially granted under the 1958 ordinance. The only evidence in the record of such a sum is found in an unidentified and unsigned offer to purchase. The trial court correctly concluded that appellants had made an outlay of only some $3,000 or $4,000. Thus, this situation is far different from that which existed in State ex rel. Schroedel v. Pagels, [9] cited by appellants. In Schroedel, petitioner had expended roughly $185,000 in reliance upon an existing ordinance. Thereafter, and with full knowledge of these expenditures, the municipality adopted a more stringent ordinance. On appeal the supreme court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the petitioner had acquired vested rights and interests by virtue of the expenditures on reliance of the previous ordinance. There is no substance to the appellants' claim here that they acquired a vested right which barred the town from further action in adopting a more stringent zoning ordinance with reference to mobile home parks.