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 such resolution or amendment, but if any such nonconforming use is voluntarily discontinued for two years or more, any future use of said land shall be in conformity with sections 519.02 to 519.25, inclusive, of the Revised Code. The board of township trustees 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 33
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995).
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995). “See R.C. 519.19. Clearly, appellant’s initial request in 1991 for a variance and his request in 1992 for relief pursuant to Section 906.”
Beck v. Springfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 624 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4דR.C. 519.19 grants township trustees the discretion to provide for the “completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon such reasonable terms as are set forth in the zoning resolution.”
Torok v. Jones, 448 N.E.2d 819 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 3ד” According to R.C. 519.19, townships may not exclude valid nonconforming uses.”
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 1995 Ohio 331 (Ohio 1995). “See R.C. 519.19. {¶ 22} Clearly, appellant’s initial request in 1991 for a variance and his request in 1992 for relief pursuant to Section 906.”
LaVon Moore v. Hiram Twp., Ohio, 988 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2021). “See Ohio Rev. Code § 519.19. A nonconforming use can continue so long as the use is not abandoned for two years or more.”
Terry v. Sperry, 2011 Ohio 3364 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 2דAfter thirty-five per cent of the lots are so developed, dairying and animal and poultry husbandry shall be considered nonconforming use of land and buildings or structures pursuant to section 519.19 of the Revised Code. {¶ g} “Division (B) of this section confers no power on…”
Swan Creek Twp. v. Wylie & Sons Landscaping, 859 N.E.2d 566 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2דAppellees responded to appellant’s verified complaint, admitting that it was engaged in mining, but pointing out that R.C. 519.19 expressly permits the continuance of the nonconforming use of land that was established before the enactment of zoning.”
Monus v. Day, 2011 Ohio 3170 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2דnot guilty based upon his legal argument that Poland Township's zoning laws at that time did not contain language restricting the extension of pre-existing nonconforming uses as required by R.C. 519.19. However, the court opined "that the present use of the cement trucks on the…”
Bd. of Twp. Trs. v. Funtime, Inc., 563 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1990). “02, it is unnecessary to determine whether appellee has established a preexisting nonconforming use pursuant to R.C. 519.19. The judgment of the court of appeals is therefore affirmed.”
Penewit v. Spring Valley Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2019 Ohio 3200 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “10. -11- continuation of non-conforming uses of land that were lawful and that existed when the zoning resolution was adopted or amended, except where the non-conforming uses have been voluntarily discontinued for two years or more.”
Matthews v. Pernell, 582 N.E.2d 1075 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5דTheir sole contention is that the ordinance is inapplicable to them pursuant to R.C. 519.19 because their use, though nonconforming, is antecedent to the adoption of the ordinance and has not for these purposes been properly found to be unlawful.”
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.