Nonconforming use; Heath Twp. v. Sall; Requirement that the use be actual; Norton Shores v. Carr; Requirement that the continuation of a nonconforming use must be substantially of the same size & essential nature as the use at the time the zoning ordinance was enacted; Eveline Twp. v. H & D Trucking Co.; “Boarding or rooming house”; Enforcing clear & unambiguous ordinance language as written; Morse v. Colitti

The court held that plaintiff-Canton Investment “changed the essential nature and enlarged the nonconforming use when it provided ‘cooking’ and ‘kitchen accommodations’ to its tenants” on the property. Thus, whenever these accommodations were added, they “created in an illegal, nonconforming use on the property.” Given that there was no question of material fact, the court affirmed the order granting defendant-Charter Township of Canton summary disposition. Plaintiff asserted that it should have been granted summary disposition instead because “the undisputed facts establish that the property was continually being used in compliance with the 1950 Ordinance” at issue. The court disagreed. “At the time the 1950 Ordinance was in effect, the property was included in the ‘C Districts,’ and the 1950 Ordinance permitted buildings in the C Districts to be used to provide ‘[b]oarding, rooming and lodging houses[.]’” The court determined that even if plaintiff was “correct that the residential building was used as an apartment building since it was erected in 1953,” plaintiff’s use of it would not fall within the Ordinance’s definition of a “boarding or rooming house” as it asserted. Under that definition, “there could not have been ‘any attempt[s]’ on the part of the family who dwelled in the home to provide the lessee or rentee with either ‘cooking or kitchen accommodations.’” Consulting a dictionary to define the words cooking, kitchen, and accommodations, the court concluded that the building could not “be considered a ‘boarding or rooming house’ during the time that the kitchens and/or amenities to cook and prepare meals were present in the units.” Even if the building could have been deemed a “boarding or rooming house” when it operated between 1953 and when plaintiff obtained it in 2012, plaintiff’s changes created an illegal, nonconforming use. Because the undisputed evidence showed that its use of the building was not allowed under the 1950 Ordinance, its use “could not be considered a legal, nonconforming use and a genuine issue of material fact did not exist for trial.”