Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 303.19 (2026)

Nonconforming use of buildings and land not affected by zoning

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

October 1, 1953

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enactment of a zoning resolution or amendment thereto, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of such resolution or amendment, but if any such nonconforming use is voluntarily discontinued for two years or more, any future use of such land shall be in conformity with sections 303.01 to 303.25, inclusive, of the Revised Code. The board of county commissioners shall provide in any zoning resolution for the completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon such reasonable terms as are set forth in the zoning resolution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1954–2022 · leading case: Booghier v. Wolfe, 587 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Booghier v. Wolfe, 587 N.E.2d 375 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1990). · cites it 10× “" Wolfe's two principal arguments in support of his assignment can be capsulized as follows: "(1) There was a lawful existing use at the premises as of May 18, 1987, the effective date of the Clark County Zoning Regulations as to the premises (See R.C. 303.19); "(2) Even if…”

Verbillion v. Enon Sand & Gravel, L.L.C., 2021-Ohio-3850, 180 N.E.3d 638. “R.C. 303.19 contains a similar provision about non-conforming uses.”

State v. Breidenbach, 213 N.E.2d 745 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1964). · cites it 2× “It is the contention of Breidenbach that the premises in question were so used prior to the adoption of the zoning resolution as to be a nonconforming use, and that the zoning resolution was adopted subject to the provisions of Section 303.19 of the Revised Code, which provides…”

Interstate Indep. Corp. v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 704 N.E.2d 611 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). · cites it 4× “R.C. 303.19 provides for the continuation, under certain circumstances, of nonconforming uses in existence before the adoption of zoning regulations: *517 “The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of…”

Gochenour v. Herderick, 131 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 1954). · cites it 2× ““Plaintiff further says that said Franklin County Rural Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear alleged appeal for the following reasons: “(1) The Franklin County Rural Zoning Board of Appeals has no jurisdiction to hear any matter concerning the existence of a…”

Davis v. Miller, 163 Ohio St. (N.S.) 91 (Ohio 1955). · cites it 4× “An important question in all zoning cases is, does a zoning measure in its operative effect constitute a reasonable regulation of the use of property in the public interest, or does it constitute an unreasonable and arbitrary interference with the rights of private ownership?…”

Al-Khatib v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2022-Ohio-1418. “15 (governing municipal zoning) and R.C. 303.19 (governing county zoning) have similar language concerning voluntary discontinuance of a non-conforming use.”

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.