Legal Opinion

Bastian v. City of Twin Falls

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided January 26, 1983No. 13658PublishedCited by 12 opinions

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

  1. County of San Diego v. McClurkenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  2. O'Connor v. City of MoscowIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Cole-Collister Fire Protection District v. City of BoiseIdaho Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Offield v. DavisSupreme Court of Virginia · 1902
  5. Messenger v. BurnsIdaho Supreme Court · 1963

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Westerberg v. AndrusIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Glengary-Gamlin Protective Ass'n v. BirdIdaho Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Kootenai County v. Harriman-SaylerIdaho Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Moss v. BjornsonIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Eddins v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 2010

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API