There is no dispute that petitioner's predecessor did maintain some actual nonconforming storage activity in the subject premises, now zoned residential, during the relevant time period. What is disputed is whether the extent of this activity, which was undertaken specifically in order to maintain the use status of the premises during a period that actual business operations had been shifted to other warehouses while this warehouse was being marketed, was sufficient to escape...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
