Court Opinion

ID: 9698715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:58:15.607716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:42.941648
License: Public Domain

*86Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
While I agree generally with the majority opinion and the judgment in this case, I believe it is important to understand that zoning ordinances may operate retroactively to deprive a property owner of previously vested rights by preventing a use to which the property was put before enactment of the ordinance.
In Wolf v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 545, 129 N.W.2d 501 (1964), we held such an ordinance of the City of Omaha to be valid. The ordinance allowed a dog kennel which was in nonconforming use on February 1,1955, to remain in such use only until February 16,1962. In that case, we quoted from City of Los Angeles v. Gage, 127 Cal. App. 2d 442, 274 P.2d 34 (1954), in which the court said, “ ‘Every zoning ordinance effects some impairment of vested rights either by restricting prospective uses or by prohibiting the continuation of existing uses, because it affects property already owned by individuals at the time of its enactment.’ ” 177 Neb. at 566, 129 N.W.2d at 513.
Whether the mandatory discontinuance of a particular nonconforming use after a fixed period is a reasonable exercise of the police power must be determined from the facts and circumstances in each case. The important point is that the right to maintain a nonconforming use of property indefinitely is not absolute, and it may be limited or destroyed by subsequent zoning legislation.