Green v. Copeland, 6 Div. 679
Decision Date | 01 October 1970 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 679 |
Citation | 286 Ala. 341,239 So.2d 770 |
Parties | , 56 A.L.R.3d 134 W. Cooper GREEN, as President of Board of Commissioners of Jefferson County, Alabama, et al. v. E. J. COPELAND. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John S. Foster, Maurice F. Bishop, J. Howard Perdue, Birmingham, for appellants.
Huey, Stone & Patton, Bessemer, for appellee.
This is a zoning case. The facts were stipulated.
For some 22 years the appellee has operated a restaurant on the property involved, where he sold beer under a license issued by the Alabama Beverage Control Board. On October 23, 1967, the ABC Board issued its order indefinitely suspending appellee's license to sell beer on the premises. On February 6, 1968, the appellant Board of Commissioners adopted a zoning resolution changing the zoning of appellee's premises from C-3 (where the sale of beer is allowed) to C-1 (where the sale of beer is not allowed).
Thereupon, the appellee filed a bill for declaratory judgment contending that § 982, Appendix Volume 14, Code of Alabama entitles appellee to sell beer on his premises notwithstanding the new zoning regulation. That statute is the county zoning statute, enabling the county to pass zoning laws. It was enacted in 1947 and provides in part as follows:
'The lawful use or occupation of any building, land, or premises existing at the time of the adoption by the governing body of the county of the zoning resolution or order or regulation, although such use or occupation does not conform to the provisions thereof, may be continued * * *.'
The trial court entered its decree holding that the zoning regulation did not apply to appellee's premises because
The appeal is from this decree.
As we view the case the question is whether the appellee is entitled to continue to sell beer on the premises notwithstanding the fact that he was not lawfully authorized to do so on the effective date of the new zoning regulation because his beer license had been suspended by the ABC Board.
Cases on this general problem have almost uniformly held that a property owner has a right to continue a non-conforming use of his property until such time as the right to do so is lost through the abandonment of such use before or after the adoption of the zoning legislation. See cases compiled at 18 A.L.R.2d 725, et seq.
It is, of course, equally true that under virtually all of the cases it is recognized that the use must be an actual use, as distinguished from a contemplated one, actually in existence at the time the zoning restriction becomes operative. Board of Zoning Adjustment for City of Lanett v. Boykin, 265 Ala. 504, 92 So.2d 906; Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 2, Chapter 58, § 2, which collates cases from all jurisdictions so holding.
The question then is whether there was an actual non-conforming use of the premises in this case on the effective date of the zoning regulation when beer was not being sold because of the ABC suspension of the appellee's license.
The elements which indicate the presence of an 'existing use' have been defined as follows:
Appeal of Haller Baking Co., 295 Pa. 257, 145 A. 77; Landay v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
USA Oil Corp. v. City of Lipscomb
...the license. In the instant case there is no revocation of a license and the license here is not a whiskey license. In Green v. Copeland, 286 Ala. 341, 239 So.2d 770, a licensee had sold beer for twenty-two years at his restaurant. The A.B.C. Board suspended his license. Thereafter the coun......
-
Dandy Co., Inc. v. Civil City of South Bend, County-City Complex, COUNTY-CITY
...an actual use as opposed to a mere intention of future use, there is an existing use. This view was also applied in Green v. Copeland (1970), 286 Ala. 341, 239 So.2d 770 where a restaurant owner's beer license had been suspended indefinitely prior to enactment of a zoning ordinance which pr......
-
Quinnelly v. City of Prichard
...implication that the owner neither claims nor retains any interest in the subject matter of the abandonment. See Green v. Copeland, 286 Ala. 341, 343, 239 So.2d 770 (1970); Board of Zoning Adjustment v. Boykin, supra; Vol. 14B, Code of Alabama 1940, as amended, Appx., § 982, p. 873; and 18 ......
-
Lewis v. City of Atlantic Beach, AT-15
...abandonment and terminate the grandfathered status of such nonconforming use of such premises. E.g., Green v. Copeland, 286 Ala. 341, 239 So.2d 770, 56 A.L.R.3d 134 (1970). There is no evidence in the record indicating that appellants, as owners of the property in question, ever intended to......