This time, we’ll spend some energy discussing the most common (and legally charged) aspect of nonconformity laws: how local laws restrict grandfathered nonconforming structures, lots, or uses while allowing the nonconformity to continue.
Mike represents public companies and smaller, privately-owned businesses and local governments in federal and state court litigation, as well as in land use and real estate development and entitlement negotiations, processes, and disputes. Mike has experience litigating throughout the United States but focuses his practice on land use, real estate and local government issues and solutions in North Carolina.
Zoning laws, like any other laws, can change from time to time. What happens if your structure, lot, or use is permitted under an existing law, but the law changes in a way that your structure, lot, or use is suddenly no longer consistent with the law? There […]
In 2007, Developer Clarion-Reames, LLC (“Clarion”) sought to construct a residential housing development in Charlotte, North Carolina.
In Bizzarro v. County of Ashe, after a quasi-judicial land use proceeding, the County’s Planning Board approved Horvath Communications, Inc.’s application for a permit pursuant to “the Ashe County Telecommunications Tower Ordinance” to construct a telecommunications tower on a parcel of property neighboring a parcel of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bizzarro.
In the recently-decided Cherry Community Organization v. City of Charlotte, the North Carolina Court of Appeals determines that standing to bring a declaratory judgment action challenging a rezoning requires both allegations of sufficient damages as well as evidence to support those allegations. A well-pleaded complaint in a rezoning challenge, alone, does not end the standing inquiry.