Cleveland MHC, LLC v. City of Richland, Mississippi
2015 WL 2250376, 163 So.3d 284, 2015 Miss. LEXIS 230 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a multi-unit property constitutes a legal nonconforming use, the "use" is the property as a whole, not its individual, replaceable components. A city's sudden decision to prohibit the replacement of these components after decades of acquiescence is an arbitrary and capricious action that unlawfully deprives the owner of their property rights.
Facts:
- Cleveland Mobile Home Community has operated as a mobile home park since the 1950s.
- In 1975, the City of Richland incorporated, and the land on which the park sat was zoned 'Light Industrial,' making the residential park a legal 'nonconforming use.'
- The city's ordinances allowed nonconforming uses to continue but not to be expanded or enlarged.
- For over thirty years, mobile homes were regularly removed from and replaced on the property without any enforcement action by the City.
- Cleveland MHC, LLC purchased the mobile-home park in 2008, allegedly with assurances from the city's zoning administrator that this practice could continue.
- In April 2011, the City informed Cleveland MHC that it would begin enforcing the ordinance to prohibit the replacement of any mobile home that was removed from a lot.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Richland informed Cleveland MHC it would begin enforcing a zoning ordinance to prevent replacement of mobile homes.
- Cleveland MHC appealed to the City's Board of Aldermen, which upheld the city's decision and adopted a resolution to that effect.
- Cleveland MHC appealed the Board's decision to the Circuit Court of Rankin County (the trial court).
- The Circuit Court affirmed the Board of Aldermen's action.
- Cleveland MHC (as appellant) appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Mississippi Court of Appeals (the intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's judgment, finding the City's action arbitrary and capricious.
- The City of Richland (as petitioner) filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Mississippi (the state's highest court), which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's resolution prohibiting the replacement of individual mobile homes in a pre-existing, nonconforming mobile home park constitute an arbitrary, capricious, and illegal deprivation of the property owner's rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Coleman, J.
Yes. The city's resolution is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal because it unlawfully infringes on the owner's constitutional right to the enjoyment of their property. The court's reasoning has two main parts. First, the court determines that the legally protected 'nonconforming use' is the operation of the mobile-home park as a whole, not the existence of each individual mobile home on its pad. Therefore, replacing an individual home is not an expansion of the nonconforming use but merely a continuation of it, analogous to routine maintenance. This distinguishes the case from precedents where an entire nonconforming structure was destroyed and could not be rebuilt. Here, the overall 'use' of the property as a park has not changed. Second, the city's abrupt change in policy after more than 30 years of allowing replacements is arbitrary and capricious. The city's long-standing inaction created a reliance interest for the property owner, and the new policy, which would destroy the business by attrition, is unreasonable and disregards the surrounding facts and controlling legal principles.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'unit' of a nonconforming use for multi-unit properties like mobile home parks, apartment complexes, or storage facilities. By defining the use as the property 'as a whole,' the court prevents municipalities from using piecemeal enforcement to eliminate grandfathered-in businesses through attrition. The ruling strengthens the property rights of owners of nonconforming uses by protecting their ability to maintain and update the individual components of their business without it being deemed an illegal expansion. This precedent limits a common tactic used by zoning boards to phase out undesirable but legal nonconforming uses and will likely be influential in future cases involving the regulation of similar properties.
