Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 08 — · Chapter 124 — Zoning
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-13a (2026)

Nonconforming buildings, structures and land uses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) When a building or other structure is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the location of such a building or structure in relation to the boundaries of the lot or when a building or structure is situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the minimum area of the lot, and when such building or structure has been so situated for three years without the institution of an action to enforce such regulation, such building or structure shall be deemed a nonconforming building or structure in relation to such boundaries or to the area of such lot, as the case may be. For purposes of this section, “structure” has the same meaning as in the zoning regulations for the municipality in which the structure is located or, if undefined by such regulations, “structure” means any combination of materials, other than a building, that is affixed to the land, including, without limitation, signs, fences, walls, pools, patios, tennis courts and decks.

(2) A property owner shall bear the burden of proving that a structure qualifies as a nonconforming structure pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection.

(b) When a use of land or building (1) is on a parcel that is fifteen or more acres, (2) is included in industry numbers 1795, 2951, 3272 or 4953 of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, United States Office of Management and Budget, 1987 edition, (3) is not permitted by the zoning regulations of a municipality, (4) has been established and continued in reasonable reliance on the actions of the municipality, and (5) has been in existence for twenty years prior to July 8, 1997, without the institution of court action to enforce the regulations regarding the use, such use shall be deemed a legally existing nonconforming use and may be continued. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt such use from the requirements of the general statutes or of any other municipal ordinance.

(1967, P.A. 896; 1971, P.A. 388; P.A. 77-509, S. 8; P.A. 91-199; P.A. 97-296, S. 3, 4; P.A. 13-9, S. 1.)

History: 1971 act changed period after which nonconforming use established from five to three years; P.A. 77-509 substituted “such building shall be deemed a nonconforming building ...” for “such building location shall be deemed a nonconforming use”; P.A. 91-199 included as a nonconforming building a building situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation which prescribes the minimum area of the lot; P.A. 97-296 added new Subsec. (b) re nonconforming land use, effective July 8, 1997; P.A. 13-9 amended Subsec. (a) by designating existing provisions as Subdiv. (1), adding provisions re nonconforming structures therein and adding Subdiv. (2) re property owner's burden of proof.

Since damages for breach of contract are measured as of date of breach, subsequent ripening of use under section does not affect damages. 170 C. 177.

Cited. 46 CA 148.

Subsec. (a):

A deck that has neither walls nor a roof is not a “building” and is not an integral part of the house to which it is attached. 308 C. 300.

Statute requires institution of civil action for an injunction within a 3-year limitations period and that neither variance appeal by abutting landowner nor issuance of cease and desist order by town zoning enforcement officer will suffice. 89 CA 324.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2022 · leading case: Benson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westport, 873 A.2d 1017 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Benson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westport, 873 A.2d 1017 (Conn. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 14× “The dispositive issue in this case is what is meant by “the institution of an action to enforce” zoning regulations in General Statutes § 8-13a (a). We conclude that § 8-13a (a) requires the institution of a civil action for an injunction within a three year limitations period…”
Raymond v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 820 A.2d 275 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 5× “the enclosure of the deck was an illegal expansion; (3) whether the court should have considered the defense, as advanced by the defendants, that a 1996 settlement agreement between the parties, which resulted in the withdrawal of prior litigation, bars the plaintiffs’…”
Wind Colebrook South, LLC v. Colebrook, 278 A.3d 442 (Conn. 2022). · cites it 4× “’’ See Gen- eral Statutes § 7-147a (a) (historic districts);15 General Statutes § 7-147p (a) (historic properties);16 General Statutes § 8-13a (a) (1) (nonconforming land uses);17 General Statutes § 29-265 (c) (certificates of occu- pancy).”
Wallenta v. Moscowitz, 839 A.2d 641 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, Max Case, the defendant’s attorney at the closing, testified that he and Barnes had discussed the zoning problem and concluded that it was a nonis-sue, as Milford had not sought to enforce the setback violation within the time prescribed by General Statutes § 8-13a.”
Laurel Beach Ass'n v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Milford, 785 A.2d 1169 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “8 Neither party cites anything in the record to support the assertion that the zoning board made an explicit determination regarding the deck. The trial court also did not rule on the issue.”
Dodson Boatyard, LLC v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 823 A.2d 371 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 3× “On appeal, the commission claims that the court improperly (1) decided that a 1983 variance for the property reduced its rear yard setback, (2) decided that the steel containers at issue were buildings and (3) applied General Statutes § 8-13a to the containers.”
Levesque v. D & M Builders, Inc., 365 A.2d 1216 (Conn. 1976). “” The house now comes under the protection of § 8-13a of the General Statutes which provides that “[w]hen a building is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality which prescribes the location of such a build *180 ing in relation to the…”
12 Havemeyer Place Co., LLC v. Gordon, 820 A.2d 299 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “See General Statutes § 8-13a (b). No claim of laches can be asserted as to a town.”
Chester v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 698 A.2d 370 (Conn. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 7× “General Statutes § 8-13a provides: “When a building is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality which prescribes the location of such a building in relation to the boundaries of the lot or when a building is situated on a lot that violates a…”
North Haven Holdings Ltd. P'ship v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 77 A.3d 866 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 8-13a (a) provides in relevant part: “When a building is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality which prescribes the location of such a building in relation to the boundaries of the lot .”
Parker v.Zoning Commision (Conn. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 2× “684 ; see General Statutes § 8-2 (a) (prohibiting municipality from amortizing or eliminating nonconformities through enactment or amendment of zoning regula- tions); General Statutes § 8-13a (a) (providing statutory protection to certain nonconforming ‘‘building[s] or other…”
Verrillo v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 155 Conn. App. 657 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015). · cites it 3× “to 2011) § 8-13a (a) extends this statutory protection with particular respect to ‘‘buildings or other structures’’ in what has been characterized as ‘‘a statute of limitations for [certain] non-conforming buildings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.