53 N.Y.2d 623 (1981)
A property owner can lose its right to a nonconforming use if the nature or intensity of the use changes significantly, particularly when the change results in an increased demand for municipal services, and estoppel generally does not prevent a municipality from enforcing its zoning ordinances.
Summary
Rosbar Company appealed a decision by the Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach, arguing that its property retained its nonconforming use status. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding substantial evidence that Rosbar’s conversion of a seasonal summer hotel into a year-round facility for senior citizens constituted a significant change in use, thereby forfeiting its nonconforming status. The court also rejected Rosbar’s estoppel argument, reinforcing the principle that municipalities are generally not estopped from enforcing zoning ordinances.
Facts
Rosbar Company owned property in Long Beach, New York, that previously operated as a seasonal summer hotel, a legal nonconforming use under the city’s zoning ordinance. Rosbar subsequently converted the property into a year-round facility catering to senior citizens. The Board of Appeals determined that this change in use was substantial enough to eliminate the property’s nonconforming status, because the change to a year-round senior living facility increased the demand for city services.
Procedural History
The Board of Appeals of the City of Long Beach ruled against Rosbar, finding that the nonconforming use had been lost. The Appellate Division initially issued a nonfinal order. After review, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision. Rosbar then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board of Appeals’ finding that the change in use of the premises caused it to lose its nonconforming status.
2. Whether the doctrine of estoppel should be applied to prevent the municipality from enforcing its zoning ordinance against Rosbar.
Holding
1. Yes, because there was proof that the seasonal summer hotel had been converted to a year-round facility for senior citizens with a consequent significant increase in demand for municipal services.
2. No, because the case does not present an occasion to make an exception to the general rule that the doctrine of estoppel is not applicable to preclude a municipality from enforcing the provisions of its zoning ordinance.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the Board of Appeals’ determination. The critical fact was the transformation of the property from a seasonal hotel to a year-round senior citizen facility. This change led to a notable increase in the demand for municipal services, such as emergency medical services, sanitation, and policing. The court implicitly applied the principle that nonconforming uses are disfavored and should not be expanded. “There was proof that what was in essence a seasonal summer hotel had been converted to a year-round facility for senior citizens with a consequent significant increase in demand for municipal services.”
Regarding estoppel, the court adhered to the general rule that municipalities are not easily estopped from enforcing their zoning ordinances. The court did not find any compelling circumstances that would warrant an exception to this rule. This reflects a policy consideration that allowing estoppel too readily could undermine the integrity of zoning regulations and the public interest they serve.