Bastian v. City of Twin Falls
Idaho Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, Judge.
When land is lawfully used or improved in a way that conflicts with requirements of a subsequently enacted zoning ordinance, the property is said to be nonconforming. From this status flows a limited protection against zoning requirements. Today we examine the limits of such protection.
This appeal focuses upon two questions. (1) If a structure on nonconforming property is enlarged, may a city impose the same landscaping and off-street parking requirements that would apply to enlargement of a structure on conforming property? (2) Does the enclosure of an area beneath the…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- County of San Diego v. McClurkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- O'Connor v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
- Cole-Collister Fire Protection District v. City of BoiseIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
- Offield v. DavisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1902
- Messenger v. BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1963
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Westerberg v. AndrusIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
- Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass'n v. BirdIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
- Kootenai County v. Harriman-SaylerIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
- Moss v. BjornsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
- Eddins v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 2010
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.