(a)(1) When a building or other structure is so situated on a lot that it violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the location of such a building or structure in relation to the boundaries of the lot or when a building or structure is situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation of a municipality that prescribes the minimum area of the lot, and when such building or structure has been so situated for three years without the institution of an action to enforce such regulation, such building or structure shall be deemed a nonconforming building or structure in relation to such boundaries or to the area of such lot, as the case may be. For purposes of this section, “structure” has the same meaning as in the zoning regulations for the municipality in which the structure is located or, if undefined by such regulations, “structure” means any combination of materials, other than a building, that is affixed to the land, including, without limitation, signs, fences, walls, pools, patios, tennis courts and decks.
(2) A property owner shall bear the burden of proving that a structure qualifies as a nonconforming structure pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection.
(b) When a use of land or building (1) is on a parcel that is fifteen or more acres, (2) is included in industry numbers 1795, 2951, 3272 or 4953 of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, United States Office of Management and Budget, 1987 edition, (3) is not permitted by the zoning regulations of a municipality, (4) has been established and continued in reasonable reliance on the actions of the municipality, and (5) has been in existence for twenty years prior to July 8, 1997, without the institution of court action to enforce the regulations regarding the use, such use shall be deemed a legally existing nonconforming use and may be continued. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt such use from the requirements of the general statutes or of any other municipal ordinance.
(1967, P.A. 896; 1971, P.A. 388; P.A. 77-509, S. 8; P.A. 91-199; P.A. 97-296, S. 3, 4; P.A. 13-9, S. 1.)
History: 1971 act changed period after which nonconforming use established from five to three years; P.A. 77-509 substituted “such building shall be deemed a nonconforming building ...” for “such building location shall be deemed a nonconforming use”; P.A. 91-199 included as a nonconforming building a building situated on a lot that violates a zoning regulation which prescribes the minimum area of the lot; P.A. 97-296 added new Subsec. (b) re nonconforming land use, effective July 8, 1997; P.A. 13-9 amended Subsec. (a) by designating existing provisions as Subdiv. (1), adding provisions re nonconforming structures therein and adding Subdiv. (2) re property owner's burden of proof.
Since damages for breach of contract are measured as of date of breach, subsequent ripening of use under section does not affect damages. 170 C. 177.
Cited. 46 CA 148.
Subsec. (a):
A deck that has neither walls nor a roof is not a “building” and is not an integral part of the house to which it is attached. 308 C. 300.
Statute requires institution of civil action for an injunction within a 3-year limitations period and that neither variance appeal by abutting landowner nor issuance of cease and desist order by town zoning enforcement officer will suffice. 89 CA 324.