Correspondence - PH #35 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Santa Ana City Council November 18, 2024 Page 9 2. The Amended Ordinance would unlawfully terminate existing, lawful nonconforming uses in violation of rights protected by California law and the City's Municipal Code. A lawful nonconforming use is "one that existed lawfully before a zoning restriction became effective and that is not in conformity with the ordinance when it continues thereafter." Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 907 P.2d 1324, 1327 n. l (Cal. 1996) (citing cases). The nature and extent of the use at the time the use is rendered nonconforming "determines the right to continue the use." Id. California courts have long held that a party may continue to use their property even though such use is nonconforming. (Hill v. Manhattan Beach, 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-86 (Cal. 1971); Livingston Rock & Gravel Co. v. Los Angeles County, 43 Cal.2d 121, 127 (Cal. 1954); Edmonds v. Los Angeles County, 40 Cal.2d 642, 651 (Cal. 1953); E.B. Jones v. City ofLos Angeles, 211 Cal.304, 310-311 (Cal. 1930).) The reason is simple: immediate termination of previously lawful (and now non -conforming) uses would be of doubtful constitutionality. (Livingston Rock & Gravel Co., 43 Cal. 2d at 127; Edmonds, 40 Cal. 2d at 651.) This follows from "vested rights" principles, which provide that when a zoning ordinance changes, a property owner may have a "vested right" to continue the existing use, notwithstanding the newer zoning restriction. (City of Ukiah v. County of Mendocino, 196 Cal.App. 3d 47, 56-57 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).) Santa Ana's proposed Ordinances would violate these principles. Hosts are making lawful uses of their property, and they have made significant investments in their homes to offer them as STRs. Settled California law affords them nonconforming use rights to continue their STR use. The Amended Ordinance cannot legally withdraw those rights. Prohibiting existing STRs also directly conflicts with the City's Municipal Code, which provides that legal nonconforming land uses may continue subject to limitations on expansion or enlargement of the use, or abandonment of use. (See Santa Ana Mun. Code § 41-683 — 41-689.) 3. Recent United States Supreme Court cases establish that the Amended Ordinance would result in a taking, entitling all hosts of the 700+ existing STRs in the City to compensation. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards rights deeply rooted in United States history. Property rights, traditionally viewed as a "bundle of sticks," are crucial to liberty, with constitutional framers emphasizing private property as bulwark against unlawful exercises of state power. The right to lease one's property is a critical aspect of these rights, protected by the Takings Clause of the U.S. and California constitutions, which requires just compensation for property taken or damaged for public use. The Supreme Court recently expanded physical takings law to encompass temporary and intermittent physical invasions similar to deprivations of the right to lease. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court held that a regulation requiring agricultural employers to allow union organizers to have periodic and temporary access to farm workers on the property constituted a physical (and not a regulatory) taking. (594 U.S. at 143.) Simply put, the "regulation appropriate[d] for the enjoyment of third parties the owners' right to exclude," which, again, the Court hailed as "`one of the most treasured' rights of property ownership." (Id. at 149.) The ordinance here not only impedes on the corollary right to include, it also effectively requires hosts to allow renters I