Legal or Legal Non Conforming

[Wendy]

In the past, I have talked to some of the zoning techs in my area and the general conclusion is that "Legal Non-conforming" is a term that does not really exist in the zoning lexicon.

Legal, Illegal or Grandfathered is the language that most of the local zoning techs use. I say potato, you say.....whatever. Most areas would grant a variance for re-built without too much trouble provided it was in keeping with the surrounding uses.

I mark "Legal Non-conforming" more as a cya than anything else.

 

[Smokey Bear]

Brad - I'm talking about when the zoning code says something like "any lot smaller than 5,000 square foot is non-conforming". Then when you look up the non-conforming section, it says that the previous section only applies to lots created AFTER the zoning code was created, lots created before that time are conforming. In those circumstances, I'll mark conforming, because while the structure might change, the lot hasn't and won't, unless someone tries to split it or add it to an adjacent lot.

I'm just saying look deeper before you decide it's conforming or non-conforming.

 

[Brad Ellis]

Wendy,

If you need a variance, it is automatically non-conforming. If it were conforming you would not need a variance.

I agree that one can get lots of different types of variances- often not too hard, depending upon where you are. And, while I have heard of it, instances where the city/county makes an owner tear down alredy existing improvements are rare and normally limited to health/safety issues, although exceptions do exist.

Cynthia,

In that case I agree so long as the lot size does not impact upon allowable improvements. If the existing smaller lots are deemed to be legal by the zoning authority, then they are. of course, legal. I would have to read the exact verbiage in the law to know if it is non-conforming.

Brad

Brad

 

[Wendy]

Wendy,

If you need a variance, it is automatically non-conforming. If it were conforming you would not need a variance.

No kidding.

My point is that the zoning guys 'round here do not call these types of lots non-conforming if improved. They call them Grandfathered.

 

[Brad Ellis]

Wendy,

It is just semantics. But different areas use different terminology and legal, non-conforming is used in a wide variety of areas and grandfathered in others and they essentially mean the same thing.

Just like a ranch is a rambler or a duplex is a set of units or a double decker or a raiseed ranch is a split foyer, mid-level, etc.

I'll just promise you that legal, non confroming is being used all over the country just as grandfathered is used all over the country. And yes, among zoning types as well.

Brad

 

[Mike Boyd]

Umm, that's what I said. If the lot is "non-conforming" per zoning, if you continue to look in the code you usually find out it's not considered non-conforming because it was created before the zoning code came into affect.

But it is non conforming with the current zoning. Basically, the lender just want to know that it can be rebuilt if destroyed or that "5" more units cannot be added changing the character of the property.

 

[Smokey Bear]

The current zoning has two parts in this case: a section for lots created before the zoning code was enacted, and a section for lots created after the zoning code was enacted. Similar to requirements for interior lots having different min. lot size from corner lots.

 

[Mike Boyd]

Brad - I'm talking about when the zoning code says something like "any lot smaller than 5,000 square foot is non-conforming". Then when you look up the non-conforming section, it says that the previous section only applies to lots created AFTER the zoning code was created, lots created before that time are conforming. In those circumstances, I'll mark conforming, because while the structure might change, the lot hasn't and won't, unless someone tries to split it or add it to an adjacent lot.

I'm just saying look deeper before you decide it's conforming or non-conforming.

Cynthia.....assume the lot is 5,000 sf and zoning is R-1 10,000. In that case it is non conforming to the 10,000 sf requirement. It was legal prior to the zone change but non conforming now, although legal.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I wonder if a pier has more cognitive ability than a post?

The piles of the pier should not be mistaken for the hemorroids of the nobility.

but i digress. The lot is legal but grandfathered. If the house burns it can be built back and does not require to be added to another tract to make the 1.5 acres. Therefore, it conforms. imho.

 

[Smokey Bear]

Cynthia.....assume the lot is 5,000 sf and zoning is R-1 10,000. In that case it is non conforming to the 10,000 sf requirement. It was legal prior to the zone change but non conforming now, although legal.

NOT if there is another section that says the first section only applies to lots created AFTER the zoning code was enacted. I'm just saying you have to look further - if the first section says min 10k, you look to the non-conforming section and it explains what happens. In some cases it says the lot is legal conforming if it was created before the code was enacted. You can't just look at the first section and be done with it.