Correspondence - Item 20 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jennifer L. Hall June 17, 2025 Page 8 (b) To Abandon a Nonconforming Used that a Property Owner Has Aa Vested Ri-Lht to Pursue, the Property Owner Must Intend to Abandon Such a Use In Proposed Section 41-2002(a)(5),the City purports to say that a nonconforming use shall be discontinued"regardless of intent"if certain elements are met. However,under California law, in order to abandon a vested right, the property owner must actually intend to abandon the vested right. It is true that a local agency can generally prohibit the reinstatement of a nonconforming use where a property owner has abandoned that use without running afoul of the vested rights doctrine. However, to be abandoned, the abandonment must be voluntary on the part of the property owner. (Hill v. City of Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, 286 ["This rule is consistent with the further rule that reuse may be prohibited when a nonconforming use is voluntarily abandoned."]; see also Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 CalAth 533, 552 ["Nonuse is not a nonconforming use, however, and reuse may be prohibited if a nonconforming use has been voluntarily abandoned." (emph. added)].) Accordingly, in determining whether a property owner has abandoned their vested right to continue to operate in accordance with the version of SD 84 that existed prior to the Proposed Ordinance, the City must look at the property owner's intent, the City cannot unilaterally determine a nonconforming use must be discontinued. (c) The City's Attempt to Require the Discontinuation of a Vested Riwht Due to a Change in Tenancy and/or Ownership is Illegal Additionally, the Proposed Ordinance purports to a property owners' ability to lease out their buildings in accordance with their vested rights by claiming that a change in ownership or operation of a building could constitute an abandonment of such a use. For example, the City's Ordinance provides as follows: The regulations contained in this Article shall also apply to: 1. A change in land use within an existing building; and 2. A change in tenancy within an existing building requiring issuance of a new Certificate of Occupancy." Likewise, the Proposed Section 41-2002(a)(7)(a)(1) purports to extinguish a property's nonconforming status if certain uses are transferred to a new tenant, and such a transfer requires a new certificate of occupancy, regardless of whether or not the use is changed and/or otherwise exacerbated.