Opinion ID: 2977832
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Zoning of the Blue Star Property

Text: Regarding the zoning of the Blue Star property, Rondigo had no protected interest because it did not own the property until almost one year after it was rezoned. Although “[a] property owner arguably has a property right where the government rezones an existing property,” Braun, 519 F.3d at 573, this interest generally does not attach to property that is owned by someone else. In fact, at the time the land was purchased by Rondigo in 2006, Rondigo already knew of the rezoning. Further, under Michigan law, an interest in an existing zoning ordinance vests only when a building permit has been issued to the owner of the property before the rezoning and substantial work has been done on the property. City of Lansing v. Dawley, 225 N.W. 500 (Mich. 1929); Schubiner v. W. Bloomfield Twp., 351 N.W.2d 214 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). Rondigo merely asserts that the evidence shows that Casco knew of Rondigo’s plans to purchase the property when Casco decided to rezone the property, but offers no evidence to support this claim. The testimony of Karen Holk, cited by Rondigo, does not show that the rezoning occurred after Holk learned of the planned purchase. Even if, however, the rezoning decision was 17 spurred by Rondigo’s plans to purchase, this would not change the fact that Rondigo did not have a property interest in the particular use of land that it did not even own. Rondigo offers no authority to support the proposition that a property interest vests when one makes plans to purchase land. Rondigo has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it had the requisite property interest to challenge the zoning classification of the Blue Star property. For these reasons, summary judgment was properly awarded to Casco on Rondigo’s claims of denial of substantive due process.