94 N.Y.2d 651 (2000)
A zoning board’s determination regarding the continuation of a pre-existing nonconforming use must be sustained if it is rational and supported by substantial evidence, requiring the current use to be qualitatively similar to the prior nonconforming use.
Summary
DJL Lighting, Inc. purchased property with a pre-existing nonconforming use (commercial moving and storage) in a residentially zoned area. DJL operated a lighting business, using the warehouse for its own equipment and supplies, rather than renting space to storage customers. The Zoning Board determined DJL’s use violated municipal code, finding it inconsistent with the prior nonconforming use. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court rulings, holding the Board’s determination was rational and supported by evidence, as DJL’s use was not qualitatively similar to the prior commercial moving and storage business. The matter was remitted for consideration of the use variance application.
Facts
A parcel of real property in a residentially-zoned neighborhood was purchased by DJL Lighting, Inc. in 1997. The property had two structures: a four-story warehouse and a smaller building. For over 70 years, prior owners operated commercial moving and storage businesses, predating the village zoning ordinance. They stored customers’ goods in the warehouse and operated offices in the smaller building. DJL Lighting, aware of the nonconforming use, established a lighting design and installation business. DJL maintained offices in the smaller structure, but used the warehouse for its own equipment, inventory, and supplies, not for customer storage.
Procedural History
Following neighborhood complaints, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held public hearings and determined DJL violated the municipal code by using the warehouse inconsistently with its prior nonconforming use. DJL’s application for a use variance was rejected. DJL commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging the ZBA’s determinations. Supreme Court annulled the ZBA’s resolutions, concluding DJL had not enlarged the nonconforming use and was entitled to a use variance. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding DJL did not exceed the scope of the legal nonconforming use, and did not address the use variance application. The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case.
Issue(s)
Whether the Zoning Board of Appeals rationally determined that DJL Lighting’s use of the warehouse was not qualitatively similar to the prior nonconforming use as a commercial moving and storage facility, and therefore impermissibly exceeded the scope of the prior nonconforming use.
Holding
Yes, because there was record evidence supporting the Board’s conclusion that the current use of the warehouse is not qualitatively similar to the previous use, thus impermissibly exceeding the scope of the prior nonconforming use.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that while nonconforming uses are tolerated, zoning policy aims for their eventual elimination. However, a zoning board’s determination on the continuation of a pre-existing nonconforming use must be upheld if rational and supported by substantial evidence. The Court noted that the Board could rationally find that the warehouse was no longer used for commercial moving and storage because DJL now uses the building in connection with its lighting business. The Court cited Matter of Rosbar Co. v Board of Appeals of City of Long Beach, 53 NY2d 623, 625 (1981) and City of Buffalo v Roadway Tr. Co., 303 NY 453, 459-460, 462-463 (1952) to support the need for qualitative similarity. The Court found that the Zoning Board’s determination was rational and supported by evidence, and therefore should not have been disturbed. The court stated, “While nonconforming uses of property are tolerated, the overriding policy of zoning is aimed at their eventual elimination.” The case was remitted to the Appellate Division to consider the use variance issue, which it had not previously addressed.