Opinion ID: 1226850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Related Provisions of the Ordinance and the Arizona Statutes

Text: The Ordinance sets forth the regulations governing nonconforming uses in Section 17, which regulates the expansion, alteration, and restoration of nonconforming uses with the goal that [e]ventually, certain classes of non-conforming uses, non-conforming structures, and certain non-conforming signs are to be eliminated or altered to conform. Ordinance § 17.0. This goal accords with the overall policy underlying regulation of nonconforming uses. See Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa, 159 Ariz. 459, 461, 768 P.2d 191, 193 (Ct.App. 1989) ([p]ublic policy favors the eventual elimination of nonconforming uses. This is implicit in § 9-462.02 and throughout the entire statutory scheme empowering Arizona cities and towns to employ zoning regulations for land use planning.). The Ordinance prohibits any regulation that would require the termination or removal, or preclude the maintenance or repair of a nonconforming use as it existed at the effective date of the zoning regulation. Ordinance § 17.11(A). The Ordinance thus complies with A.R.S. § 11-830(A), which restricts a county's authority to regulate nonconforming uses by providing that no ordinance shall [a]ffect existing uses of property or the right to its continued use or the reasonable repair or alteration thereof for the purpose for which used at the time the ordinance affecting the property takes effect. (Emphasis added.) The Ordinance and subsection (A) of the statute deal with continuation of the use separately from expansion, thus implying that the vested right to continue the use does not include a right to change or expand the use. The Arizona legislature has, of course, contemplated limited expansion of a nonconforming use by providing that a nonconforming business use within a district may expand if such expansion does not exceed one hundred per cent of the area of the original business. A.R.S. § 11-830(B) (emphasis added). The Ordinance is facially consistent with A.R.S. § 11-830(B) in that it provides for expansion of a nonconforming use by up to one hundred percent of its original floor area, provided that such expansion is accomplished pursuant to a conditional use permit and in accordance with the setback and sideyard regulations of the zone in which it is located. [2] Ordinance § 17.11(C). However, in a separate provision, the Ordinance bars expansion onto a site not previously used for the nonconforming use. Section 17.3(B) provides in relevant part: No non-conforming use shall be enlarged or extended in such a way as to occupy any part of ... another... site which it did not occupy at the time it became a non-conforming use, or in such a way as to displace any conforming use occupying a structure or site, except as permitted in this Section. [3] Site is defined as a parcel of land, subdivided or unsubdivided, occupied or to be occupied by a use or structure. Ordinance § 8. Under the facts of this case, therefore, we must determine whether the Arizona legislature intended A.R.S. § 11-830(B) to grant an absolute right to expand to after-acquired adjoining parcels not previously subject to the nonconforming use, or whether such expansion is subject to county regulatory authority.