Hoffmann v. Kinealy

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc · 1965 · Property

PropertyZoningNonconforming Usesnonconforming usezoningamortizationpolice powertakings

Facts

Relators owned two adjoining lots in a St. Louis dwelling district and had continuously used them since 1910 for open storage of lumber, building materials, and construction equipment. The city conceded that this use existed continuously and was a pre-existing lawful nonconforming use; the lots were fenced and partially landscaped. St. Louis's 1950 zoning amendment allowed prior nonconforming uses but required nonconforming open storage in dwelling districts to be discontinued within six years, and a 1956 amendment then absolutely prohibited such open storage. After the city notified relators in 1962 to cease the use, they sought a certificate of occupancy to continue the use, but the commissioner and Board denied it.

Issue

May a city constitutionally eliminate a pre-existing lawful nonconforming use of land by giving the owner a six-year amortization or toleration period and then prohibiting the use outright, where the use is not alleged to be a nuisance? More specifically, does such termination amount to a taking of private property for public use without just compensation under Article I, Section 26 of the Missouri Constitution?

Rule

A pre-existing lawful nonconforming use is a vested property right. While zoning may validly regulate future uses under the police power, a municipality may not terminate such a vested nonconforming use by amortization or delayed prohibition, where the use is not a nuisance and is not merely relatively slight and insubstantial, because doing so constitutes a taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, a parcel in a neighborhood later rezoned for single-family residences had been used continuously since 1985 for outdoor storage of masonry supplies by its owner, Elena Ruiz. The city adopts a new ordinance allowing existing nonconforming uses to remain for four years, after which outdoor storage in residential districts must cease, and the city denies Elena a permit to continue.

If Elena challenges the ordinance, which is the strongest argument under the governing rule?

Explanation. A lawful use existing before the zoning change is a vested property right. The majority rule is that a municipality may regulate future uses, but it may not terminate a substantial, lawful pre-existing nonconforming use by amortization or delayed prohibition when the use is not a nuisance. Delay does not convert an otherwise unconstitutional taking into valid regulation.