Laserfiche WebLink
: q A-�.�. - <br /> Attachment #7 <br /> g �' $ � ZONING PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS <br /> amount of use permitted under the ordinance, it ma � do so. Fon- <br /> tana v Atl�inson (1963 ) 212 CA2d a99 ? Q f'j� ? 5. It *nay also <br /> require reconversion of a 12-uniL apartment house into a permit�ed <br /> three-family unit. San Francisco v Me�Jer (1962 j?08 CA2d 12s, <br /> � S CR 99. 1Yleye�• is similar to Donovan v Sa7zta :Ylo�zica (1943 ) <br /> 38 CA2d 386, ;.99 P2d S1, in which a permit was obcained for � <br /> singIe-family dwelling that was built as a three-ramilv ciwellin` <br /> and eventuaIlv espanded into a 24-unit buildin�. Acouiescence in <br /> the nonconformity ror 20 years did not estop the c:ty rrom en- <br /> � ioreing iu orciinanc See also Sa�� MariTZO v Ro�nza�z Catl�olic rlrc>>_ <br /> bzshop (1960) I80 CA2d 65i 4 CR >47. <br /> An e;toppel argument was made when a city allowed an ares <br /> • zoned commercial to be occupied by so man�% uniaa-1u; indusrrial <br /> uses that the area became predominanLlv industr,'ai. Nevertheless, <br /> the city could deny a rezoning to industrial witnou havin <br /> :� commercial zonine • • f g the <br /> held unconsutunonaI as appiied. See Lvc.�zarc� <br /> ; v Los An�elcs (19-9) C�d 4 �� <br /> ; =' ' S3, 20_ P�d ;g_ <br /> '' �, � 5>. S I i IY�ro�7g f tal Issuance o f Perin.it <br /> {�` .Issuance or a � <br /> Pe=�it that snould nc: :�ati� ;;C� issued 'oecause <br /> -.� �! `; it would confirm an ur.iaw' � - <br /> rui e:�tension or a nonconrorming use <br /> � i `"t does no� estop revoca�ion of �he permit, garticuiariy nriieiz revoca- <br /> `' ; <br /> ; ; Lzon was prompt (_;%� :nonths). Se FOIZtQ1ZQ 1J _'�tJuJ1S0lT ( 1963 j <br /> : � <br /> '; � �l? CA2d 499, 28 CR 25; nco�le v W�ttlti�as (1°59) 1� > CA2d <br /> `, j � g?, �45 P2d 96G (notice giver. betore completion ot construc- <br /> ''� ,I �ion ).,� landoa�ne: is not entitled to claim reliance because he es- <br /> �: i � <br /> : i' ' _; re:l��d funds ior improvements on the � ' <br /> ''"'' director that the Iandowner's ro erty w d� a planning <br /> .rt: . . <br /> ` 1 `� P p rezoned. Sa�r <br /> : rrancisco v Burto�r (1962) 201 CA2d 7s9, 20 CR �%3. Esto p pel <br /> ^� ' tioes not a p p l y even w hen a legislative body informall � <br /> ! `' � � } declares <br /> �: t ; tnat the enzor c� me: � t o f an or dinance wi l l be temporarily sus- <br /> � i i pended, a building is built, and the Iegisiature later decides to <br /> '� ; � en'rorce the ordinance. Magzcire v Reardo�t. ( I919 ) T1 CA 596, <br /> '!- 183 P 303 af�'d (i92 1' 2 r�— <br /> � _ � ) S S L S_ i 1. See for cornparison � 5.18 on <br /> ;, i. ; susaension ot enrorcement by reason of eme:,�enc`�. <br /> ,` <br /> � ��- � �� 5. S 21 La:rii <br /> �� 1� of Enforcenac�at <br /> ' ��' '� j Deliberate and intentional discriminatory <br /> ; � �• enrorcement of an <br /> ;� orainance can resuIt in escoppel on equal procection grounds. See <br /> ' � 168 <br /> `�.._.-,� <br /> I <br /> i <br />