Whistle Blower

[Randolph Kinney]

The most typical type of nonconforming use here in the county and cities is where the minimum lot size is not met for current zoning requirements. This was typically created through lot splits or subdivisions. Houses that were already built before the zoning change (with or with out permits) are automatically grandfathered as nonconforming use. If destroyed, they can be rebuilt.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

CITY OF GLENDORA, CA

http://qcode.us/codes/glendora/

ORIGINAL city Code Chapter 19.16 repealed / replaced by

SECTION 4, 19.02.101

SECTION 4​

​

. A new Section 19.02.010 is hereby added to the Glendora Municipal Code
to read as follows:
​

“19.02.010 Adopted by reference​

​

: The City adopts by reference the California Building
Code, Volumes 1 and 2, 2007 Editions, which contains substantial copyrighted material from the
2006 International Building Code, Second Printing, which is a copyright owned by the
International Code Council, Inc., and said code, including the Appendix Chapters 1, B, C, F, G,
H, I, & J and Amendments, is adopted in total as the law of the City. One copy of the Code has
been, and is now, filed in the office of the City Clerk, and the Code is adopted by reference as if​

incorporated and set out in full in this Chapter.”

 

[Randolph Kinney]

CITY OF GLENDORA, CA

http://qcode.us/codes/glendora/

21.02.045 Nonconforming lot development plan review.
A. Purpose. This section provides procedures whereby a nonconforming lot that cannot be developed or improved in conformance with the provisions of this title due to the nonconforming condition of the lot, including size, dimension, or configuration, may be granted a nonconforming lot development plan review permit to allow the development or improvement of the lot.

Mike,

Even what you have cited shows what nonconforming means for the city of Glendora; it is a condition related to the land - NOT ITS IMPROVEMENT.

Show me the definition of nonconforming as it applies only to the improvement, for example, not having a permit or even having a permit.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Randolph - Chapter 19.16 of the 2007 - Now RETIRED ( as of Jan 1, 2008) City Code.....

19.16.030 Violations and penalties.

CodeAlert: This item has been affected by 1887. Please refer to the CodeAlert Ordinance List for the most current provisions.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Mike,

Even what you have cited shows what nonconforming means for the city of Glendora; it is a condition related to the land - NOT ITS IMPROVEMENT.

Show me the definition of nonconforming as it applies only to the improvement, for example, not having a permit or even having a permit.

None of the hundreds of B&Z Ordinances I've used or researched EVER segregate the land use from the improvements on Residential IMPROVED Parcels. One improved, the Site is the Land AND the Permanently-Affixed Improvements. P.S. I haven't said "it applied ONLY to the improvement". I have said it applies to the SITE - "including the Improvements."


A vacant, unimproved Lot certainly CAN be Legal, Non-Conforming Use. Once Improved, the Site is either Legal, Legal-Nonconforming Pre-existing, or Illegal. Sure, the Lot may be LNC, as can the Residential Use - combined ......it is the SITE that is the "AS-IS" physical subject of the appraisal assignment.

Based on the original Post - the garage conversion may or may not have occurred prior to 1985. Only the Municipality (possible the County and/or the State depending on the Age of the Improvements) can confirm the current Compliance of the IMPROVED Site as of the Effective Date of Appraisal. Good place to start is the City 2007 Records. (not the Assessment Records).

 

[Randolph Kinney]

None of the hundreds of B&Z Ordinances I've used or researched EVER segregate the land use from the improvements on Residential IMPROVED Parcels. One improved, the Site is the Land AND the Permanently-Affixed Improvements. P.S. I haven't said "it applied ONLY to the improvement". I have said it applies to the SITE - "including the Improvements."

Here is a quote for nonconforming improvements:

Residential Buildings: A nonconforming residential building in any zoning district destroyed to the extent of more than 50 percent of its replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, explosion or other casualty or Act of God, or the public enemy, may be restored to its original density, size, height, design, configuration or condition and the use or occupancy of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this Article provided such nonconformities are not increased in density or intensity, and that there is no reduction in the amount of off-street parking that existed on site prior to such destruction. Compliance with current development standards of the underlying zone, particularly required yard areas, is encouraged wherever possible.

So zoning does speak to and can apply to the improvements only as nonconforming. In what way? Permits? Lack of permits? Or would that be the requirements to have that particular nonconforming building be in harmony with the intended use outlined by zoning or how the lot is to be used? Is there a distinction yet what nonconforming is and how does it apply? It seems obvious to me that nonconforming can apply to either the building or the lot and does not depend on having a building permit at any time in the past.

Here is an example; house built in 1890 and is still standing and in use today. It may be nonconforming however, I doubt there exits any permits for the building. According to the above statute, it can be rebuilt to the original configuration if destroyed.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"It seems obvious to me that nonconforming can apply to either the building or the lot and does not depend on having a building permit at any time in the past."

* correct. Non-Conformity can apply to EITHER the improvement or the lot. A Legal, Non-conforming, Use - defined in the vast majority of zoning codes as "was legal at the time it was subdivided (if lot), or built (building/dwelling) but does not conform to PRESENT zoning either with respect to Site configuration OR Improvement Use.

ex. 1890s residential dwelling NOW located in a commercial or industrial zone. In many cases zoning did not exist at the time the lot and/or the improvements were created.

"Here is an example; house built in 1890 and is still standing and in use today. It may be nonconforming however, I doubt there exits any permits for the building. According to the above statute, it can be rebuilt to the original configuration if destroyed."

Non-conforming use, by itself, (see above) is NOT illegal, and rebuilding approval is not ALWAYS granted, nor does that use automatically transfer on sale (each case is necessarily different especially for pre-existing, legal, non-conforming uses when Zone Location changes). Considerations include analyzing BOTH the lot utility and compliance AND the Improvement use and compliance with CURRENT zoning. Permits that were not required nor existed at the time the site was created and/or improved clearly are typically supplanted with Written Municipal confirmation that the site and improvements which were LEGALLY created prior to zoning implementation i.e. Letter of Legal, Non-conforming Use.

The applicable sentence in your post above supports that conclusion:

" may be restored to its original density, size, height, design, configuration or condition and the USE or occupancy of such building or part thereof which existed at the time of such destruction may be continued subject to all other provisions of this Article provided such nonconformities are not increased in density or intensity, and that there is no reduction in the amount of off-street parking that existed on site prior to such destruction. Compliance with current development standards of the underlying zone, particularly required yard areas, is encouraged wherever possible. "


Rebuilding approval allows rebuilding the improvement in accordance with the original footprint and LEGAL use. Changes to either the lot area, OR the dwelling, or the USE, must be Compliant with Current Code.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Although my input is obviously less scholarly than the recent posts, I typically ask the Planner point-blank whether a lot size that's smaller than the current legal minimum area constitutes a "non-conforming" use, assuming that the public conception of "conformity" is identical to ours.

Often the planner will say "yes it's non-conforming" and equally as often the planner will say "no, the legal minimum in terms of conformity is pertinent only if an effort is made further to subdivide the lot."

I base my decision to indicate "legal" or "legal non-conforming" on the form based upon the planners' comments and disclosure my source. However, each time I do so I ask myself whether whether the planner is defining "conformity" in the same context in which I'm answering the question.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Although my input is obviously less scholarly than the recent posts, I typically ask the Planner point-blank whether a lot size that's smaller than the current legal minimum area constitutes a "non-conforming" use, assuming that the public conception of "conformity" is identical to ours.

Often the planner will say "yes it's non-conforming" and equally as often the planner will say "no, the legal minimum in terms of conformity is pertinent only if an effort is made further to subdivide the lot."

I base my decision to indicate "legal" or "legal non-conforming" on the form based upon the planners' comments and disclosure my source. However, each time I do so I ask myself whether whether the planner is defining "conformity" in the same context in which I'm answering the question.

ZZ,

In the case where you have an addition made to the current property with out permit, what do you call it? Is it illegal use?

 

[hastalavista]

Although my input is obviously less scholarly than the recent posts, I typically ask the Planner point-blank whether a lot size that's smaller than the current legal minimum area constitutes a "non-conforming" use, assuming that the public conception of "conformity" is identical to ours.

Often the planner will say "yes it's non-conforming" and equally as often the planner will say "no, the legal minimum in terms of conformity is pertinent only if an effort is made further to subdivide the lot."

I base my decision to indicate "legal" or "legal non-conforming" on the form based upon the planners' comments and disclosure my source. However, each time I do so I ask myself whether whether the planner is defining "conformity" in the same context in which I'm answering the question.

ZZ-

I will typically do the same thing, however many times buried in the zoning ordinance in their "Non-Conforming" regulation section is a comment regarding lot size minimums and the fact that pre-existing, sub-standard lots (in regard to lot-size) may continue its conforming use.
In such cases, I still check "legal, non-conforming" and then add that it is due to lot size minimum (I'd say that is an appraiser decision based on the specifics of the assignment). :new_smile-l:
I think the important thing to do (as is your practice) is to include in the report the rationale for making the zoning compliance conclusion!