Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Matter of Cradit v. Southold Town Zoning Bd. of Appeals
Citation: 2020 NY Slip Op 588Docket: 2017-04066
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; January 28, 2020; New York; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In *Cradit v Southold Town Zoning Bd. of Appeals*, the Appellate Division addressed an appeal by Lisa Cradit challenging the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals' (the Board) determination that her use of property for short-term rentals was not a legal nonconforming use. Cradit purchased property in an R-40 low-density residential district in 2006 and began short-term rentals in 2014. Following a 2015 amendment to the zoning code prohibiting transient rentals, Cradit received a notice of violation. She sought a ruling from the Board, asserting her rentals were a pre-existing legal nonconforming use. The Board concluded that her rental activity resembled a prohibited hotel/motel use rather than the allowed one-family dwelling use, thereby denying her claim. Cradit initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and a declaratory relief action, which the Supreme Court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the lower court's order by affirming the Board's conclusion regarding nonconforming use but deleting the dismissal of the action itself, effectively declaring Cradit's rentals illegal under current zoning regulations. The ruling reinforced that a zoning board's interpretation of its ordinances receives significant deference in judicial reviews, which are limited to instances of illegality, arbitrariness, or abuse of discretion. A legal nonconforming use is established when a property's use predates a zoning restriction that prohibits that use. However, such a use cannot be recognized if it was initiated in violation of a prior zoning ordinance. To qualify as a legal nonconforming use, property owners must prove their use was lawful before the relevant zoning law was enacted. In the case at hand, the Board determined that Cradit's short-term rental of her property did not constitute a legal nonconforming use, as it was not operating as a one-family dwelling. Instead, it was being used similarly to a hotel/motel, which is not allowed in her zoning district. Prior to the relevant zoning codes, any unpermitted use was considered prohibited, thus Cradit’s use violated existing zoning laws. Consequently, her assertion of a legal nonconforming use failed. The judgment should have explicitly declared that her property use is not a legal nonconforming use. The judges concurred with this decision, and the Clerk of the Court is named as Aprilanne Agostino.