nonconforming use of ten years' duration -- Application.
(1) The lawful use of a building or premises, existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it, may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of such regulations, except as otherwise provided herein.
(2) The board of adjustment shall not allow the enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use beyond the scope and area of its operation at the time the regulation which makes its use nonconforming was adopted, nor shall the board permit a change from one (1) nonconforming use to another unless the new nonconforming use is in the same or a more restrictive classification, provided, however, the board of adjustment may grant approval, effective to maintain nonconforming-use status, for enlargements or extensions, made or to be made, of the facilities of a nonconforming use, where the use consists of the presenting of a major public attraction or attractions, such as a sports event or events, which has been presented at the same site over such period of years and has such attributes and public acceptance as to have attained international prestige and to have achieved the status of a public tradition, contributing substantially to the economy of the community and state, of which prestige and status the site is an essential element, and where the enlargement or extension was or is designed to maintain the prestige and status by meeting the increasing demands of participants and patrons.
(3) Any use which has existed illegally and does not conform to the provisions of the zoning regulations, and has been in continuous existence for a period of ten (10) years, and which has not been the subject of any adverse order or other adverse action by the administrative official during said period, shall be deemed a nonconforming use. Thereafter, such use shall be governed by the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.
(4) The provisions of subsection (3) of this section shall not apply to counties containing a city of the first class, a consolidated local government, an urban-county government, or a city with a population equal to or greater than twenty thousand (20,000) based upon the most recent federal decennial census. Effective: January 1, 2015 History: Amended 2014 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 196, effective January 1, 2015. -- Amended 2002 Ky. Acts ch. 346, sec. 149, effective July 15, 2002. -- Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 28, effective July 15, 1986. -- Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 412, sec. 3, effective July 13, 1984. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 327, sec. 3, effective June 17, 1978. -- Created 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 172, sec. 56.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Legrand v. Ewbank, 284 S.W.3d 142 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
Legrand v. Ewbank, 284 S.W.3d 142 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The constitutional protection afforded property owners and its limitations have been codified in KRS 100.253 which provides: (1) The lawful use of a building or premises, existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it, may be continued, although such…”
Bd. of Adjustments v. Brown, 969 S.W.2d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “However, the circuit court also held that the Board erred as a matter of law in its determination that the increase in the number of auctions and the repairs and renovations to the porch constituted an impermissible extension or enlargement of the nonconforming use as…”
Grannis v. Schroder, 978 S.W.2d 328 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “However, there was no question that it was built before the adoption of the 75-foot setback requirement, which makes it a legal nonconforming structure under KRS 100.253(1). Legal nonconforming uses can continue their existence, in contrast to illegal nonconforming uses or…”
Martin v. Beehan, 689 S.W.2d 29 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “1 Nonconforming use is authorized (grandfathered) under KRS 100.253 which provides, in part, as follows: “EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE, CONTINUANCE — CHANGE—EFFECT OF NONCONFORMING USE OF TEN YEARS’ DURATION — APPLICATION— (1) The lawful use of a building or premises, existing at…”
Bellefonte Land, Inc. v. Bellefonte, 864 S.W.2d 315 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993).
“241), allow changes from one nonconforming use to another (KRS 100.253) and hear administrative appeals (KRS 100.”
Dempsey v. Newport Bd. of Adjustments, 941 S.W.2d 483 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
“Nonconforming use is authorized by KRS 100.253, an enabling act, which provides, in part, as follows: (1) The lawful use of a building or premises, existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it may be continued, although such use does not conform to…”
Landgrave v. Watson, 593 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“Conditional uses, nonconforming uses and any “other uses of the same or more restrictive classification” provided in KRS 100.253(2) are also available in situations similar to this.”
Greater Harrodsburg/Mercer Cnty. Plan. & Zoning Comm'n v. Romero, 250 S.W.3d 355 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008).
“KRS 100.253 provides: (1) The lawful use of a building or premises, existing at the time of the adoption of any zoning regulations affecting it may be continued, although such use does not conform to the provisions of such regulations, except as otherwise provided herein.”
Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic (Ky. 2025).
· cites it 9× “]”), and that the Board failed to consider that the expansion of a nonconforming use was implicated under KRS 100.253 (“The board of adjustment shall not allow the enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use beyond the scope and area of its operation at the time the…”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 6× “(iii) The conduct of the September 27, 2018, videotaped, open meeting conformed to the law as it pertained to the public comment and presentation of evidence with respect, to 6169 Lexington Road as a non-conforming use (KRS 100.253). The October 4, 2018 vote of the Board…”
Petty v. Barrentine, 594 S.W.2d 903 (Ky. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “KRS 100.253. The primary question, however, is whether the appellees acquired a vested right to use the property as a food mart.”
Darren C. Wilson v. Cynthiana-Harrison Cnty.-Berry Jt. Plan. Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 5× “He alleges he continuously used his property as a junkyard as defined in the Harrison County Zoning Ordinance for ten (10) years without any adverse order or other adverse action by an administrative official for Harrison County and, on that basis, sought a declaration that his…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.253(1) — 5 cases
Grannis v. Schroder, 978 S.W.2d 328 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
“However, there was no question that it was built before the adoption of the 75-foot setback requirement, which makes it a legal nonconforming structure under KRS 100.253(1). Legal nonconforming uses can continue their existence, in contrast to illegal nonconforming uses or…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.253(2) — 10 cases
Bd. of Adjustments v. Brown, 969 S.W.2d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“However, the circuit court also held that the Board erred as a matter of law in its determination that the increase in the number of auctions and the repairs and renovations to the porch constituted an impermissible extension or enlargement of the nonconforming use as…”
Grannis v. Schroder, 978 S.W.2d 328 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997).
“However, there was no question that it was built before the adoption of the 75-foot setback requirement, which makes it a legal nonconforming structure under KRS 100.253(1). Legal nonconforming uses can continue their existence, in contrast to illegal nonconforming uses or…”
Landgrave v. Watson, 593 S.W.2d 875 (Ky. Ct. App. 1979).
“Conditional uses, nonconforming uses and any “other uses of the same or more restrictive classification” provided in KRS 100.253(2) are also available in situations similar to this.”
Stuff Props. v. winchester/clark Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments (Ky. Ct. App. 2022).
“(iii) The conduct of the September 27, 2018, videotaped, open meeting conformed to the law as it pertained to the public comment and presentation of evidence with respect, to 6169 Lexington Road as a non-conforming use (KRS 100.253). The October 4, 2018 vote of the Board…”
Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist, Inc. v. Joel Frederic (Ky. 2025).
“]”), and that the Board failed to consider that the expansion of a nonconforming use was implicated under KRS 100.253 (“The board of adjustment shall not allow the enlargement or extension of a nonconforming use beyond the scope and area of its operation at the time the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 100.253(3) — 2 cases
Bd. of Adjustments v. Brown, 969 S.W.2d 214 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998).
“However, the circuit court also held that the Board erred as a matter of law in its determination that the increase in the number of auctions and the repairs and renovations to the porch constituted an impermissible extension or enlargement of the nonconforming use as…”
Darren C. Wilson v. Cynthiana-Harrison Cnty.-Berry Jt. Plan. Comm'n (Ky. Ct. App. 2026).
“He alleges he continuously used his property as a junkyard as defined in the Harrison County Zoning Ordinance for ten (10) years without any adverse order or other adverse action by an administrative official for Harrison County and, on that basis, sought a declaration that his…”
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.