AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park
585 N.W.2d 411, 1998 WL 743979, 1998 Minn. App. LEXIS 1185 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality can terminate a nonconforming land use through an amortization period, and the reasonableness of that period is determined by a multi-factor analysis that primarily considers whether the property owner has had sufficient time to recoup their initial investment.
Facts:
- AVR, Inc. (AVR) owned and operated a ready-mix concrete plant that was constructed in 1954 in the City of St. Louis Park.
- In 1959, the city passed a zoning ordinance that classified the plant as a pre-existing nonconforming use because it was within 400 feet of a residential district.
- AVR purchased the plant in 1974 for $260,000.
- In 1990, the city adopted a new comprehensive plan to phase out heavy industrial uses in the area, and in 1992, it rezoned AVR's property from Industrial to Multifamily Residential.
- On October 2, 1995, after conducting an analysis, the city adopted an ordinance creating a two-year amortization period for AVR's plant, requiring it to cease operations.
- The city's analysis determined that AVR had earned a return of approximately 560% on its original investment and that the plant's useful life for accounting and tax purposes had expired.
Procedural Posture:
- AVR commenced an action in district court seeking a declaration that the city's amortization ordinance was unconstitutional.
- AVR and the City of St. Louis Park filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City and dismissed AVR’s complaint.
- AVR, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a municipal zoning ordinance that establishes a two-year amortization period to terminate a pre-existing, nonconforming industrial use reasonable and constitutional where the owner has fully recouped their investment and the property is fully depreciated for tax purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Willis, Judge
Yes, the ordinance establishing a two-year amortization period is reasonable and constitutional. The court held that establishing an amortization period is a legislative act, which must be upheld unless it is unsupported by any rational basis related to public welfare. The city's two-year period was reasonable because it was based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant factors, particularly the fact that AVR had already recouped its investment multiple times over and the plant was fully depreciated for tax purposes, indicating its economic useful life had been exhausted. The court also rejected the equal protection claim, finding that AVR's heavy industrial plant was not similarly situated to other nonconforming uses, such as a bar, due to its significantly more disruptive nature.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of amortization as a legitimate tool for municipalities to phase out nonconforming land uses without resorting to eminent domain or constituting an unconstitutional taking. The case establishes that the 'reasonableness' of an amortization period hinges more on financial metrics—like the owner's recoupment of their investment—than on the physical lifespan or replacement cost of the structure. This provides a clear, defensible standard for cities looking to implement their comprehensive plans by eliminating uses that are inconsistent with modern zoning, thereby shaping future urban development.
Unlock the full brief for AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park