Private zoning enforcement action; Lawful nonconforming use

The court held that the trial court did not err by ruling “that the recent use of the east side of the” defendant-sport shooting range “was not an unlawful expansion of defendants’ prior nonconforming use.” This private zoning enforcement case arose from plaintiffs’ concerns of increased shooting activity at the range. The court noted that “the range was operating as a prior nonconforming use under both the 1979 ordinance and the current ordinance.” The crux of the issue here was “whether the sporting clays course on the east side of the property was unlawfully extended or enlarged in 2021, in violation of 2008 Ordinance, § 19.03(1)(a).” The court concluded that it was not. It found “that the trial court did not clearly err by determining that the Spring 2021 upgrades were merely a continuation of the range’s legal, prior nonconforming use status. The upgrades did not amount to an entirely new shooting concept or facility. Instead, the upgrades were made to regulate the shooting range and effectuate a safer experience for the range’s customers. Importantly, the same style of shooting took place before and after the upgrades were made. Accordingly, the continuation of the nonconforming use of the property did not expand the previous nonconforming use.” Affirmed.