The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enacting a zoning ordinance or an amendment to the ordinance, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of such ordinance or amendment, but if any such nonconforming use is voluntarily discontinued for two years or more, or for a period of not less than six months but not more than two years that a municipal corporation otherwise provides by ordinance, any future use of such land shall be in conformity with sections 713.01 to 713.15 of the Revised Code. The legislative authority of a municipal corporation shall provide in any zoning ordinance for the completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon such reasonable terms as are set forth in the zoning ordinance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Boice v. Vill. of Ottawa Hills, 2013 Ohio 4769 (Ohio 2013).
Boice v. Vill. of Ottawa Hills, 2013 Ohio 4769 (Ohio 2013). · cites it 6ד{¶ 33} Until now, the term “nonconforming use” has referred to “a use of property which was lawful prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance” and which “may be continued after the effective date of the ordinance even though it does not comply with the applicable use…”
Wolfe v. Vill. of Brice, Ohio, 37 F. Supp. 2d 1021 (S.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 7דPlaintiff argues in his Motion for Summary Judgment 3 that, pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code § 713.15, his use of his property for an adult book establishment should be grandfathered into the current Village zoning plan because he “was never afforded an opportunity to continue to…”
N. Ohio Sign Contractors Ass'n v. City of Lakewood, 513 N.E.2d 324 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 7דThe question presented by this appeal is whether constitutional due process or the prohibition of R.C. 713.15 against retroactive zoning ordinances prohibits the retroactive enforcement of a sign ordinance which requires the alteration or removal of previously lawful signs.”
J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. City of Brunswick, 49 F. Supp. 2d 1032 (N.D. Ohio 1999). · cites it 6ד” O.R.C. § 713.15. Further, Article XVIII, § 3 of the Ohio Constitution prohibits municipalities from adopting regulations that conflict with the state’s general laws.”
State v. Killeen, 2019 Ohio 2264 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 5ד” R.C. 713.15. The Village’s ordinances do not restrict the restoration of a nonconforming use of land as long as the restoration does not extend, change, or enlarge the use.”
North Olmsted Chamber of Com. v. City of North Olmsted, 86 F. Supp. 2d 755 (N.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 4דintiffs of the economically viable use of their property and thus is an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Mnend-ments of the United States Constitution, and Article I, § 16, of the Ohio Constitution; (8) Defendant’s attempts to restrict the continuing use of…”
City of Kettering v. Lamar Outdoor Advert., Inc., 525 N.E.2d 836 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3ד” In 1957, the Ohio Legislature enacted R.C. 713.15, which read (see 127 Ohio Laws 18, 19): “The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enacting a zoning ordinance or amendment thereto, may be…”
State ex rel. Sunset Est. Props., L.L.C. v. Vill. of Lodi, 30 N.E.3d 934 (Ohio 2015). · cites it 2דBecause the mobile-home parks in this case existed prior to the passage of the ordinance creating the R-2 Districts, the mobile-home parks are legal nonconforming uses under R.C. 713.15. {¶ 3} In 1987, appellant, the village of Lodi, passed an ordinance enacting Lodi Zoning Code…”
Bell v. Rocky River Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 702 N.E.2d 910 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11ד34628, unreported, reversed the decision of the board of zoning appeals and ruled that R.C. 713.15, not R.R.C.O. (Rocky River Code of Ordinances) 1165.”
City of Wooster v. Ent. One, Inc., 814 N.E.2d 521 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2דSee, also, R.C. 713.15. The zoning ordinance was passed on August 19, 2002, and took effect on September 19, 2002.”
Penewit v. Spring Valley Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2019 Ohio 3200 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3ד{¶ 24} Under R.C. 713.15: The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enacting a zoning ordinance or an amendment to the ordinance, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the…”
Pschesang v. Vill. of Terrace Park, 448 N.E.2d 1164 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 2דThe pertinent part of R.C. 713.15 provides that “[t]he lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enacting a zoning ordinance or amendment thereto, may be continued, although such use does not conform…”
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.