Heath Township v. Sall
Michigan Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.
i
While I agree with the majority that no nonconforming use was established by defendants’ construction, I would also hold that defendants did not possess a nonconforming use because the citizens of the municipality, by filing a petition and reversing the zoning designation pursuant to MCL 125.282; MSA 5.2963(12), precluded the establishment of the property expectations and good faith necessary to constitute a nonconforming use. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the statute by permitting developers to circumvent its requirements by quickly engaging in construction sufficient to establish a…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Austin v. OlderMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- City of Lansing v. DawleyMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Gackler Land Co. v. Yankee Springs TownshipMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
- Stadle v. Township of Battle CreekMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.