History:
L. 1921, ch. 100, § 4; R.S. 1923, § 13-1103; L. 1961, ch. 68, § 1; L. 1965, ch. 97, § 3; Repealed, L. 1991, ch. 56, § 28; January 1, 1992.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Authority of city in enactment of ordinances hereunder considered. Ware v. City of Wichita, 113 Kan. 153, 214 P. 99.
2. Cited in holding city zoning ordinance valid and not discriminatory. City of Norton v. Hutson, 142 Kan. 305, 307, 46 P.2d 630.
3. Statute protects existing uses against subsequent zoning, not uses merely anticipated. Houston v. Board of City Commissioners, 218 Kan. 323, 332, 543 P.2d 1010.
4. Cited; power of city to zone property resulting in cemetery becoming nonconforming use upheld. Johnson County Memorial Gardens, Inc., v. City of Overland Park, 239 Kan. 221, 224, 228, 718 P.2d 1302 (1986).
5. Valid nonconforming use recognized as vested right protected by due process. Goodwin v. City of Kansas City, 244 Kan. 28, 32, 766 P.2d 177 (1988).
Johnson Cnty. Mem'l Gardens, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 718 P.2d 1302 (Kan. 1986). · cites it 2דK.S.A. 12-709. By definition, an existing or nonconforming use is a lawful use of land or buildings which existed prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance and which is allowed to continue despite the fact it does not comply with the newly enacted use restrictions.”
Goodwin v. City of Kansas City, 766 P.2d 177 (Kan. 1988). “Kansas recognizes a nonconforming use as a vested right pursuant to K.S.A. 12-709, which provides that zoning ordinances “shall not apply to the existing use of any building or land.”
Colonial Inv. Co. v. City of Leawood, 646 P.2d 1149 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “Our statutory scheme, in K.S.A. 1974 Supp. 12-709, protects ‘existing uses’ from subsequent zoning but it does not protect either existing zoning or merely anticipated uses.”
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.