Legal Opinion
Rosema v. City of Seattle
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 30, 2012No. 65607-4-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEllington, J.
¶1 This land use action concerns whether the owners of a legally nonconforming duplex abandoned the nonconforming use. We hold that under the definitions in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC), they did not.
*296BACKGROUND
¶2 In 1956, the city of Seattle (City) allowed a single-family residence near the University of Washington to be converted into a duplex. The upper floors retained house number 5211 and the basement unit was given number 5215. The following year, the City changed the neighborhood zoning to single-family residence. The property retained a legal nonconforming use status as a duplex.
¶3…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2003
- Van Sant v. City of EverettCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1993
- In re the Marriage of AkonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Quality Rock Products v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- Miller v. City of Bainbridge IslandCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Johnson v. City of SeattleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Total Outdoor Corp. v. City of Seattle Department of Planning & DevelopmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
- Ina Tateuchi v. City Of BellevueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
- Brown v. Mason CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2021
- Tyko Johnson, App. v. City Of Seattle, Dept. Of Planning And Development, Res.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2014