Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-26a (2026)

Effect of change in subdivision or zoning regulations or boundaries of districts after approval of plan

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special act or local ordinance, when a change in the subdivision regulations is adopted by the planning commission of any town, city or borough, or other body exercising the powers of such commission, no subdivision plan which has been approved, prior to the effective date of such change, by such planning commission or other body, and filed or recorded with the town clerk, shall be required to conform to such change.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special act or local ordinance, when a change is adopted in the zoning regulations or boundaries of zoning districts of any town, city or borough, no lot or lots shown on a subdivision or resubdivision plan for residential property which has been approved, prior to the effective date of such change, by the planning commission of such town, city or borough, or other body exercising the powers of such commission, and filed or recorded with the town clerk, shall be required to conform to such change.

(2) (A) Any construction on a vacant lot shown on a subdivision or resubdivision plan approved before, on or after June 1, 2004, shall not be required to conform to a change in the zoning regulations or boundaries of zoning districts in a town, city or borough adopted after the approval of the subdivision or resubdivision. Notwithstanding subdivision (1) of this subsection, any construction on an improved lot shown on a subdivision or resubdivision plan approved before, on or after June 1, 2004, shall be required to conform to a zoning change adopted subsequent to said lot becoming an improved lot.

(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of section 8-25 and subsection (a) of section 8-26, any vacant lot that is depicted on a subdivision or resubdivision plan that has been recorded on or before October 1, 2024, in the land records of the municipality in which such vacant lot is located, if the recorded chain of title for such vacant lot references such subdivision or resubdivision plan, shall not be required to conform to a change in the zoning regulations or the boundaries of zoning districts in such municipality that is adopted after the approval or recording of the subdivision or resubdivision plan.

(C) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of section 8-25 and subsection (a) of section 8-26, any vacant lot that is depicted on a subdivision or resubdivision plan that, prior to the adoption of zoning regulations, has been recorded on or before October 1, 2024, in the land records of the municipality in which such vacant lot is located, shall not be required to conform to a change in the zoning regulations or the boundaries of zoning districts in such municipality that is adopted after the approval or recording of the subdivision or resubdivision plan if such vacant lot conformed at any time with any zoning regulations that would have applied to such vacant lot if such vacant lot was depicted on a subdivision or resubdivision plan recorded after the adoption of zoning regulations.

(D) For purposes of this subsection, (i) a lot shall be deemed vacant until the date a building permit is issued with respect thereto and a foundation has been completed in accordance with such building permit but shall not be deemed vacant if any structures on such lot are subsequently demolished, and (ii) a lot shall be deemed improved after the date a building permit is issued with respect thereto and a foundation has been completed in accordance with such building permit.

(3) This subsection shall not alter or affect a nonconforming use or structure as provided in section 8-2.

(1959, P.A. 58; 59; February, 1965, P.A. 422; 1969, P.A. 396; 1971, P.A. 215; P.A. 84-147, S. 2; P.A. 04-210, S. 1; P.A. 05-288, S. 42; P.A. 24-143, S. 21.)

History: 1965 act amended Subsec. (b) to provide buildings to be erected on lots in already approved subdivision shall not be required to conform to changes in zoning regulations; 1969 act replaced in Subsecs. (a) and (b) the deadlines for conforming to changes in regulations, i.e., from “three years ... from approval of subdivision plan” to “five years ... from the effective date of such change”; 1971 act deleted qualifying phrase “for residential property” modifying “subdivision plan”; P.A. 84-147 removed references to a five-year deadline for conformity with changes in subdivision regulations or zoning regulations or boundaries; P.A. 04-210 amended Subsec. (b) by designating existing provisions as Subdiv. (1) and applying said provisions to resubdivisions and by adding new Subdivs. (2) and (3) exempting construction on vacant lots from conformance to zoning changes, requiring construction on improved lots to conform to such changes and specifying that provisions of statute do not alter status of nonconforming uses or structures, effective June 1, 2004; P.A. 05-288 made technical changes in Subsec. (b)(2)(A), effective July 13, 2005; P.A. 24-143 added new Subsec. (b)(2)(B) to exempt certain vacant lots depicted on a recorded subdivision or resubdivision plan from conformance with zoning regulation changes after such recording, added Subsec. (b)(2)(C) to exempt certain vacant lots depicted on a subdivision or resubdivision plan from conformance with zoning regulation changes if such vacant lot was previously in conformance with zoning regulations, and redesignated existing Subsec. (b)(2)(B) as Subsec. (b)(2)(D).

See Secs. 8-28a and 8-28b re guarantee that change in zoning regulations or districts or in subdivision regulations does not affect approved subdivision plan.

Subdivision plan must have been formally approved prior to effective date of change in order to be covered by section. 148 C. 299. Cited. 153 C. 194. Not applicable where plaintiffs had filed maps of subdivisions prior to adoption of regulations where subdivision plan had never been approved. 155 C. 185.

Cited. 25 CA 85; 35 CA 820.

Subsec. (b):

Cited. 36 CA 98. Plaintiff's 1954 subdivision plan that included his lot and was approved, filed and recorded in the town placed lot within the scope of Subsec. and gave plaintiff a vested right; any subsequently enacted regulations are not applicable to plaintiff and do not prevent plaintiff from receiving a zoning permit for subsequent improvements that would otherwise violate subsequently enacted regulations. 75 CA 289. Under Subdiv. (2), lot was not required to comply with subsequent changes because lot was vacant and unimproved when building permit was sought. 118 CA 90.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)

(Return to
List of Chapters)

(Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2022 · leading case: Poirier v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 815 A.2d 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Poirier v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 815 A.2d 716 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 43× “The main issue on appeal is how General Statutes § 8-26a (b) applies to the plaintiffs’ lot and their application for a zoning permit to construct a garage and breezeway on that lot.”

Ross v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Westport, 983 A.2d 11 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 30× “4 *95 I The board’s first claim is that the court incorrectly held that the officer and the board were without authority to enforce state and federal statutes that were enacted subsequent to the approval of the plaintiffs subdivision in 1965.”

Harris v. Zoning Comm'n, 788 A.2d 1239 (Conn. 2002). · cites it 5× “Under Connecticut law, previously approved subdivisions are exempt from changes in zoning regulations; General Statutes § 8-26a (b); 20 and land referenced in an application filed with the zoning commission prior to the adoption of an amendment is exempt from that amendment.”

Iannucci v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 592 A.2d 970 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991). · cites it 5× “The defendant claims that the trial court improperly found (1) that the defendant had abandoned its claim of merger, and that the issuance of a building permit by the building official required certain land to be treated as separate building lots, (2) that the plaintiff’s two…”

Johnson v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 646 A.2d 953 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 8× “In a thorough opinion, the trial court reviewed General Statutes § 8-26a 2 and found that the Stratford selectmen did not act as a planning commission in 1918, such that their acceptance of the subdivision map exempted lot 19 from compli *824 anee with subsequent zoning…”

Town of Lebanon v. Woods, 215 A.2d 112 (Conn. 1965). · cites it 4× “General Statutes §§ 8-26a, 8-28a, 8-28b. Those statutes do not benefit this defendant for at least two reasons.”

Gay v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 757 A.2d 61 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 7× “” The court further held that General Statutes § 8-26a (b), 5 which provides that lots *384 in an approved subdivision may not be required to conform to subsequent changes in zoning regulations, applies to the plaintiffs’ case and, thus, “the plaintiffs were not required to…”

Vine v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 887 A.2d 442 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 5× “See General Statutes § 8-26a (b). The record is unclear as to whether the easement was involuntarily taken or whether the prior property owner, the plaintiff, settled the condemnation action initiated by the Connecticut Light and Power Company.”

Miller v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 647 A.2d 1050 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 4× “The chain of title reveals that the plaintiffs property was always a separate and distinct parcel and was not a part of any subdivision. Thus, the shape requirement applies to the plaintiff’s property, and the property is not a legal nonconforming lot.”

Corsino v. Grover, 170 A.2d 267 (Conn. 1961). · cites it 2× “384 (General Statutes §§ 8-26a, 8-28a) protects developers from changes in area requirements when the subdivision plan has been formally approved by a planning commission.”

Ross v. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n, 982 A.2d 1084 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 4× “(act), and (2) concluded that General Statutes § 8-26a (b) (1) is to be interpreted broadly so as to preclude the ability of the town to enforce state and federal regulations on property located within a preapproved subdivision plan.”

Holt v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 968 A.2d 946 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “The zoning enforcement officer in that case had advised the plaintiff that the provisions of General Statutes § 8-26a (b) did not *27 apply to his application to locate a synagogue on certain property and that the synagogue would have to comply with applicable zoning regulations.”

Show all 17 citing cases →

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.