Asia v. City of Seattle

• Decision Date: 22 March 1971
• Docket Number: No. 514--40933--I
• Citation: Asia v. City of Seattle, 482 P.2d 810, 4 Wn.App. 530 (Wash. App. 1971)
• Parties: Benjamin ASIA, Hershell Asia, Theresa Asia and Hilda Asia, Appellants, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, C. S. McCormack, Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Seattle, and the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Seattle, composed of Paul J. Alexander, Charles M. Carroll, Mrs. Harlan H. Edwards, Clarence F. Massart, M. B. Mitchell, and Ray L. Eckmann, Ted C. Best and Edward F. Riley, Respondents.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 530

4 Wn.App. 530

482 P.2d 810

Benjamin ASIA, Hershell Asia, Theresa Asia and Hilda Asia, Appellants, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation, C. S. McCormack Superintendent of Buildings of the City of Seattle, and the Honorable Members of the City Council of the City of Seattle, composed of Paul J. Alexander, Charles M. Carroll Mrs. Harlan H. Edwards, Clarence F. Massart, M. B. Mitchell and Ray L. Eckmann, Ted C. Best and Edward F. Riley, Respondents.

No. 514--40933--I.

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, Panel Two.

March 22, 1971.

Franco, Asia, Bensussen & Coe, Albert M. Franco, Seattle, for appellants.

A. L. Newbould, Corp. Counsel, Gordon F. Crandall, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Seattle, for respondents.

FARRIS, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellants are owners of a parcel of real property in Seattle, 120 feet by 100 feet at 1405--13--31st Avenue South, which they acquired in 1938. The property is located directly above the southerly tunnel leading from downtown Seattle to the Lacy V. Murrow Floating Bridge over Lake Washington. An advertising structure situated on the west 33 feet of said property is highly visible from the roadway approaching the tunnel from the west.

Appellants leased the west 33 feet of the parcel as a site for an advertising sign from 1958 until 1966 when the city ordered termination of its use for advertising purposes.

On June 24, 1957, the city adopted a comprehensive zoning ordinance (86300). The advertising sign was a legal nonconforming structure and use under the ordinance.

On May 29, 1962, ordinance 91201 amending section 5.33 of ordinance 86300 was approved. It was under this ordinance that the city acted in discontinuing the non-conforming use.

It is not disputed that the westerly 33 feet could be leased for $150 per month if a sign is permitted at the location. The westerly 33 feet are now used for no other purpose except for light, air and access to the two apartments and four stores that are located on the front of the parcel.

The authority of the city, in the reasonable exercise of its police power, to regulate land use through zoning is not in issue. Appellants allege that the application of the zoning ordinance to their property completely eliminated the economic use of the property without just compensation and was therefore unconstitutional in its application to them.

We agree with appellants' contention that the fortuitous enhancement of the value of the parcel (by the location of the highway and tunnel...