Conditional Use Permit = "legal, Non-conforming"?

[hastalavista]

I was reading an appraisal the other day. There was a c-store/gas station located on the subject's site. A gas station was not one of the permitted uses (by right); it was permitted with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP).

The appraisal indicated that the subject was "legal, non-conforming" as the gas station required a conditional use permit.

I had always thought that a CUP, if required for a particular use and issued, created a "legal use", and I would not think to describe the subject's use as "legal, non-conforming". Certainly I'd describe the requirement for the CUP (and the existence thereof). But I wouldn't think to call the use, with its conditional use permit, "legal, non-conforming".

Is describing a property with zoning that that requires a CUP for the subject's use (and the subject has one in effect) "legal, non-conforming" more common than I think?
Or am I the oddball? (keep the wiseguy responses to a minimum!)

 

[Gobears81]

Maybe it is semantics, but I don't see a problem with calling a property with a conditional use permit legally non-conforming. The current use does not conform to the zoning, but because of the conditional use permit, it is legal.

 

[hastalavista]

Maybe it is semantics, but I don't see a problem with calling a property with a conditional use permit legally non-conforming. The current use does not conform to the zoning, but because of the conditional use permit, it is legal.

I should emphasize that I didn't think it was a problem. I just didn't think it was conventional or the norm.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

If I was doing an appraisal like this, I would likely go down to the planning department to get their opinion on the matter. Personally I would tend to say "no" to a CUP, but I'd also weigh it in the context of other circumstances. With a variance, I would tend to lean toward "nonconforming," for the simple reason that the use is simply not permitted and has to get special approval.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I suggest the answer is emboldened.

"A gas station was not one of the permitted uses (by right); it was permitted with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP).

and the CUP may, or may not, transfer on sale, further investigation would address that.

 

[hastalavista]

I suggest the answer is emboldened.

"A gas station was not one of the permitted uses (by right); it was permitted with the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP).

and the CUP may, or may, not transfer on sale, further investigation would address that.

In this case it does transfer and the use can continue.
I agree, Mike, that for a specific case, there may be different circumstances. I'm talking about the common cases. In residential, it may be a 2nd unit requires a CUP; the owner gets the CUP to build the 2nd unit, and the CUP transfers with the property. Does that CUP create a non-conforming use?

I'm trying to get a feel of how others look at this: Do most consider a CUP to create a non-conforming use, and if so, do they describe it like that in their appraisals?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

the owner gets the CUP to build the 2nd unit, and the CUP transfers with the property. Does that CUP create a non-conforming use?

YUP. As long as the emboldened above remains the same and is not revised to include the current non-conformity. Further either a Variance vs a CUP also may or may not transfer or remain in effect - still a LNCU.

 

[hastalavista]

the owner gets the CUP to build the 2nd unit, and the CUP transfers with the property. Does that CUP create a non-conforming use?

YUP. As long as the emboldened above remains the same and is not revised to include the current non-conformity. Further either a Variance vs a CUP also may or may not transfer or remain in effect - still a LNCU.

Ok, that's a straight answer I can understand. Thanks.

 

[Sid Holderly]

Our local zoning requires a special exception for a lot of the commercial and industrial uses. The County wants to be able to make special rules or confirm drainage, sign-age, parking and other special items for many common commercial and industrial uses. These special exception use continues as long as the property is used as described for the special exception. They are legal and conform per details of the "S" requirements. We have no CUP, though a variance is similar in some instances. A variance continues as long as the use continues and it is not unused (vacant) for more than 6 months. A variance is normally used for setbacks, but can be used for types of use. Non-conforming and grandfathererd generally have no effect on value unless it is tied to vacant or damaged property.

 

[GWISC]

In our area, conditional use permits follow the owner, not the property. Technically (for our area), once the owner sells or transfers the property, the conditional use permit must be re-applied for. There is no guarantee of a new issuance. Perhaps your zoning department can give you a bit more info on how long the permit is good for and does it expire once the the current owners sell.