This summary also appears under Zoning
Issues: Zoning ordinance violation; Whether there was a "prior nonconforming use" of the land; MCL 125.3208(1); Edward C. Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd. of Appeals; Heath Twp. v. Sall; Failure to preserve an issue for appeal; Fast Air, Inc. v. Knight; Vushaj v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of MI; Failure to develop an argument on appeal; Mitcham v. Detroit
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)
Case Name: Township of Macomb v. Svinte
e-Journal Number: 58933
Judge(s): Per Curiam – O'Connell, Borrello, and Gleicher
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for the plaintiff-township and enjoining the defendants-landowners from using their property for commercial purposes or for storing commercial property. Plaintiff sought to enjoin defendants from using their property in this manner, claiming it violated a zoning ordinance, was not a prior nonconforming use because the commercial use of the property was never legal, and, even if there was a prior nonconforming use, they had inappropriately expanded that use. The trial court granted summary disposition for plaintiff. On appeal, the court rejected defendants' argument that summary disposition was inappropriate because there was a prior nonconforming use. It noted that the only evidence they presented in support of this argument was that the prior owners of the land had used the property for commercial purposes before they purchased it. "However, defendants are required to show a legal use occurring before the 1973 agricultural zoning ordinance took place. Defendants provide absolutely no evidence of this, which they were required to do to survive summary disposition." As to their remaining arguments, the court noted that they were either unpreserved, undeveloped, or meritless. Affirmed.
© 2015 State Bar of Michigan