Zoning; Nuisance per se; MCL 125.3407; Morse v Colitti; Zoning violations; Injunction; Mandatory abatement; Lima Twp v Bateson; Equitable defenses; Estoppel against municipality; Hughes v Almena Twp

The court held that the trial court properly granted plaintiff-township summary disposition and ordered removal of defendant’s structure because it violated the zoning ordinance and therefore constituted a nuisance per se. Defendant constructed an addition to a pole barn without permits and in violation of setback and size requirements. The township sought injunctive relief requiring removal. On appeal, the court held that a zoning violation constitutes a nuisance per se because “a structure erected in violation of a zoning ordinance constitutes a nuisance per se,” and under the statute “the court shall order the nuisance abated[.]” The court emphasized that defendant admitted he built the structure without permits and that it violated setback and square-footage limits, so there was no genuine issue of material fact. The court rejected defendant’s equitable and good-faith arguments, explaining that property owners are “‘charged with knowledge of the restrictive provisions of lawfully adopted ordinances’” and that “‘[c]asual private advice or assurance’” from officials does not estop enforcement. It also rejected defendant’s attempt to require proof of harm, clarifying that a nuisance per se exists “‘regardless of location or surroundings.’” Because abatement is mandatory under the statute, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering removal of the structure. Affirmed.