AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Owner-occupancy requirement is unconstitutional regulation of property ownership
A municipal ordinance requiring owner occupancy was an unconstitutional regulation of legal ownership and not a regulation of property use, according to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
In 2004, Broadus Hill III, constructed a garage apartment on rental property he owned in the city of Wilmington. In 2005, the city notified Hill that he was in violation of a land development ordinance requiring the owner of a garage apartment to reside either in the apartment or in the main residence. After unsuccessfully seeking to eliminate the owner-residency requirement, Hill began residing in the property twenty-seven days after receiving the first citation. The city fined Hill a total of $5,400 for his period of noncompliance and filed suit when he failed to pay. The trial court held that the fines were invalid because the ordinance was an unconstitutional regulation of property ownership. The city appealed.
On appeal, the city argued that the owner-occupancy requirement was a constitutional exercise of its zoning powers. The appellate court disagreed, noting that zoning ordinances regulate the use of property, not the nature of the ...