Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.068 (2026)

Repealed, 1966

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Catchline at repeal: Nonconforming uses of land, continuance of. History: Repealed 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 91. -- Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 104, sec. 1. -- Created 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 176, sec. 8.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1949–1969 · leading case: Durning v. Summerfield, 235 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Durning v. Summerfield, 235 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). · cites it 3× “Appellants maintain: (1) The court erred in overruling special demurrers; (2) the court erred in overruling a general demurrer, and (3) KRS 100.068 permits the continued “use of land”, though that use may be nonconforming.”

Silliman v. Falls City Stone Co., 305 S.W.2d 322 (Ky. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 3× “But in a judicial proceeding it was adjudged that its previous and existing use as a rock quarry could be continued as a nonconforming use under the provisions of KRS 100.068. In its applicable part the judgment reads: “ * * * it is further adjudged that the plaintiff was vested…”

Durning v. Summerfield, 235 S.W.2d 761 (Ky. Ct. App. 1951). “Appellants maintain: (1) The court erred in overruling special demurrers; (2) the court erred in overruling a general demurrer, and (3) KRS 100.068 permits the continued “use of land,” though that use may be nonconforming.”

Holloway Ready Mix Co. v. Monfort, 474 S.W.2d 80 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968). “Holloway first argues that this property enjoys the advantages of a nonconforming use conferred by KRS 100.068, which provides: “The lawful use of land for trade, industry or residence, existing at the time of adoption of any zoning regulation or restriction, or at the time of…”

Louisville Builders Supply Co. of St. Matthews v. City of Richlawn, 392 S.W.2d 438 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965). “The next contention is whether KRS 100.068 and 100.069 relating to nonconforming uses are applicable to this case.”

Butler v. Louisville & Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment & Appeals, 224 S.W.2d 658 (Ky. Ct. App. 1949). · cites it 2× “The permit was denied by the zoning authorities on three grounds, namely, (1) the proposed building would be an addition to a nonconforming use, (2) such additions are not permitted under KRS 100.068 or by zoning regulations, and (3) an approval would be “contrary to the intent…”

Deerfield Co. v. Stanley, 441 S.W.2d 119 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). “The appellants defended the injunction suit brought against them by the appropriate Jefferson County officials on the basis that a stand for the sale of produce, both homegrown and imported, had been maintained on the property before the effective zoning law and continuously…”

Hofgesang v. McMakin, 457 S.W.2d 950 (Ky. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “Nonconforming uses of land were specifically recognized by KRS 100.068. Section 30 defines nonconforming use in conformity with the statute.”

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.