Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 9 2. The Amended Ordinance would unlawfully terminate existing, lawful nonconforming uses . Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1327 n.1 (Cal. 1996) (citing cases). The Id. California courts have long held that a party may continue to use their property even though such use is nonconforming. (Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 121, 127 (Cal. 1954); Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 310-311 (Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful (and now non-conforming) uses would be of doubtful constitutionality. (Livingston Rock & Gravel Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) Th principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes, a property owner may have a City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) are making lawful uses of their property, and they have made significant investments in their homes to offer them as STRs. Settled California law affords them nonconforming use rights to continue their STR use. The Amended Ordinance cannot legally withdraw those rights. that legal nonconforming land uses may continue subject to limitations on expansion or enlargement of the use, or abandonment of use. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41-683 41-689.) 3. Recent United States Supreme Court cases establish that the Amended Ordinance would result in a taking, entitling all hosts of the 700+ existing STRs in the City to compensation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards rights deeply rooted in United with constitutional framers emphasizing private property as bulwark against unlawful exercises of critical aspect of these rights, protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions, which requires just compensation for property taken or damaged for public use. The Supreme Court recently expanded physical takings law to encompass temporary and intermittent physical invasions similar to deprivations of the right to lease. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that a regulation requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to have periodic and temporary access to farm workers on the property constituted a physical (and not a regulatory) taking. (594 U.S. at 143.) for the enjoyment of third parties th (Id. at 149.) The ordinance here not only impedes on the corollary right to include, it also effectively requires hosts to allow renters 9