Petitioners applied for a wholesale junk license under article XIII of the ordinances of the City of Buffalo. Defendants relied on section 18 of chapter LXX, concerning termination of nonconforming uses, to deny the license and prevent continued nonconforming use of petitioners' premises. Special Term concluded that petitioners were entitled to the license upon compliance with the ordinance's preliminary requirements. The order also included injunctive relief.
Issue
May the City use an ordinance provision terminating nonconforming uses to deny petitioners a business license and thereby prevent continuation of an existing nonconforming use of their premises? Also, may injunctive relief be granted in an article 78 proceeding?
Rule
In New York, nonconforming uses or structures existing when a zoning ordinance is enacted are generally constitutionally protected and may continue despite contrary ordinance provisions. The exception noted by the court is that this general rule does not apply to a purely incidental recreational or amusement use. In addition, injunctive relief is not available in a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Rochester, Lena Ortiz has operated a metal-salvage yard on the same parcel since 2012. In 2024, the city rezoned the area to prohibit that use and later denied Lena's annual salvage-business license solely because a local ordinance states that nonconforming uses must terminate after rezoning, even though she satisfied every listed licensing prerequisite.
If Lena brings an article 78 proceeding challenging the denial, what is the strongest argument that the court should require the city to issue the license?
Explanation. The majority states that in New York, nonconforming uses or structures in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and may continue despite contrary ordinance provisions. Therefore, a municipality may not employ a termination provision to deprive an owner of a business license when doing so would prevent continuation of an existing nonconforming use, assuming the applicant complied with the ordinance's preliminary licensing requirements. (Derived from Harbison v. City of Buffalo (n.d.).)