Court Opinion

ID: 9845705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:26:35.140396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:18.845862
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree entirely with Justice Weltner’s dissent. I write separately only to add that in my view the intent to eventually continue the nonconforming use, whether of the previous owner whose license was revoked or of his successor in title, is irrelevant in this case.
This case does not involve the voluntary suspension of a nonconforming use by its owner. Here the nonconforming use was involuntarily terminated by the City of Atlanta’s revocation of the former owner’s business license. It was revoked because of his wilful violations of the license ordinance. Holding a valid license was essential to the existence of the nonconforming use. The revocation followed an adjudicatory proceeding under the Atlanta ordinance. Neither that ordinance nor the order of termination has been challenged or appealed. It must follow then, by the clear language of the Atlanta ordinances relating both to license revocation and nonconforming uses, that the non-conforming use in this case has been extinguished and cannot be revived.
I am authorized to state that Justice Weltner and Justice Ben-ham join in this dissent.