Opinion ID: 1385741
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court and court of appeals holdings

Text: In a written opinion denying injunctive relief, the trial court stated:    [I]t is the conclusion of the court that a nonconforming use has been established, that such use has not been discontinued or abandoned, that such use may continue so long as it does not differ from previous use, and that plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.    The Court of Appeals reversed, saying that the    defendant has not proved a vested nonconforming use,    50 Or. App. at 367, 622 P.2d 1152, and ordering that    [a]n injunction should issue prohibiting defendant from extracting minerals from his land in the absence of a conditional use permit or an appropriate zone change. As stated in footnote 2, we adopt the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals' finding of no abandonment makes it unnecessary to consider the application of abandonment, either in the context of what is now ORS 215.130(7) (formerly ORS 215.130(6)), discussed below, or in the context of a use which, though pre-dating the effective date of the zoning law, had been abandoned prior thereto. Nor does this case present the question of an enlarged use, such as was involved in Bither v. Baker Rock Crushing Co., 249 Or. 640, 438 P.2d 988, 440 P.2d 368 (1968). [4] The principal questions for decision are whether the evidence shows that a prior lawful use under ORS 215.130(5) has been established and whether there was an interruption of use under ORS 215.130(9) and under the zoning ordinance. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant has no permitted nonconforming use because (a) the prior use was too sporadic and intermittent to give rise to any right to continue the use, (b) there was an interruption of use after the zoning law became effective, and (c) that the defendant's post-ordinance use of the land was an unauthorized enlargement or prohibited increase of use. We do not consider the latter point. We limit our inquiry to points (a) and (b) because plaintiff's complaint made no claim of an enlarged use, the trial court apparently found no use in excess of the prior use, and because appropriate relief is available to the plaintiff or others if the defendant uses his land at a level in excess of the lawful use established under ORS 215.130(7).