Ferris v. City of Las Vegas

Decision Date29 December 1980
Docket NumberNo. 11908,11908
Citation96 Nev. 912,620 P.2d 864
PartiesEdward H. FERRIS, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Nevada, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court

James J. Brown, Las Vegas, for appellant.

George F. Ogilvie, City Atty., and Christopher G. Gellner, Deputy City Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant owns two houses in an area zoned R-1 (residential). Since the early 1950's, appellant has used the driveway between the two houses as a means of ingress to and egress from his business, Ed Ferris Automotive Center. Appellant also has used the rear yards to park and store vehicles being serviced at his business. Pursuant to its zoning ordinances, 1 the city brought an action to enjoin appellant's alleged commercial uses of his R-1 property. The district court granted the injunction, and this appeal followed.

1. Appellant first contends that there is insufficient evidence to establish a zoning violation. This contention is based primarily on the city's failure to introduce into evidence a certified copy of the existing zoning ordinances.

This court will not disturb the finding of the lower court when it is supported by substantial evidence. Franklin v. Bartsas Realty, Inc., 95 Nev. 559, 598 P.2d 1147 (1979). In his answer to the city's complaint, appellant admitted that the houses are located in an R-1 zone. In addition, there is substantial evidence in the record to show that the property was used for commercial purposes. The use of property in a residential zone to gain vehicular access to business property is a commercial use in violation of zoning laws. See City and County of San Francisco v. Safeway Stores, 150 Cal.App.2d 327, 310 P.2d 68 (1957); Angel v. Board of Adjustment of Twp. of Franklin, 109 N.J.Super. 194, 262 A.2d 890 (1970); City of Providence v. First National Stores, Inc., 100 R.I. 14, 210 A.2d 656 (1965).

2. Appellant next contends that even if a zoning violation was established, he has a nonconforming use with respect to the commercial activities on the property. A nonconforming use is a use which does not conform to the restriction governing a zoned area, but which lawfully existed at the time the ordinance went into effect. L.V.C.C. 11-1-7. Generally, zoning ordinances do not limit the right of a landowner to continue a nonconforming use in existence at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Pederson v. County of Ormsby, 86 Nev. 895, 478 P.2d 152 (1970); State ex rel. Davie v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 224 P.2d 309 (1958).

Appellant argues that he has a nonconforming use because he began his commercial use of the residential property prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinances under which the injunction was sought. Appellant's use of the driveway began in the early 1950's. L.V.C.C. 11-1-6(A) and 11(A) were enacted in 1960. However, predecessor ordinances classified the property as residential beginning in 1945. Thus, appellant's use was unlawful from the outset. A landowner acquires no advantage from a nonconforming use where it appears that such use was unlawful at the time the zoning regulation took effect. Botchlett v. City of Bethany, 416 P.2d 613 (Okl.1966). The evidence in this case supports the finding that appellant did not have a nonconforming use. Pederson v. County of Ormsby, supra.

3. Appellant's final contention is that the city's action should have been barred by estoppel and laches. Appellant's commercial use began in the early 1950's. The city was notified of the violations in 1974. In 1975 and 1976 misdemeanor citations were issued to appellant. In 1977 the city brought this action for an injunction.

An injunction is a proper remedy where there is a zoning violation. L.V.C.C. 11-1-26(D); Smith v. City of Las Vegas, 80 Nev. 220, 391 P.2d 505 (1964). The granting, refusing or dissolving of injunctions is a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • April 2, 2008
    ...of an injunction, since such rules tend to undermine the discretionary nature of equitable remedies"); Ferris v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 912, 620 P.2d 864, 865-66 (1980) (although injunctive relief appropriate to restrain zoning violation, "[t]he granting, refusing or dissolving of injun......
  • Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 31, 1999
    ...has right to prohibit accessory use (access and parking) to use (residential) not permitted in that district]; Ferris v. City of Las Vegas (1980) 96 Nev. 912, 914, 620 P.2d 864 [use of driveway in residential district for access to business zone is commercial use in violation of zoning laws......
  • Fernhoff v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • November 30, 1984
    ...authorities' inaction created a reasonable belief in Plaintiff that he was permitted to construct a road. See Ferris v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 912, 620 P.2d 864, 866 (1980). He also contends that the doctrines of res judicata, collateral estoppel and double jeopardy require that the nec......
  • Griffin v. Rockwell Intern., Inc., 12368
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1980
    ... ... 29, 1980 ... Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1981 ...         Fitzgibbons & Beatty, Las Vegas, for appellant Henry C. griffin ...         Harkins & Beckett, Ltd., Carson City, for ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT