Moffatt v. City of Forrest City
1961 Ark. LEXIS 526, 350 S.W.2d 327, 234 Ark. 12 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance may prohibit the restoration of a building used for a non-conforming purpose if the structure is damaged beyond a specified percentage of its value. A trial court's factual determination of the extent of damage will be upheld on appeal unless it is against the preponderance of the evidence.
Facts:
- In 1951, Mr. and Mrs. Louie Moffatt purchased a home in Forrest City, Arkansas.
- In 1954, the Moffatts made additions to the home and began operating a meat market and processing plant on the premises.
- In 1959, Forrest City enacted a zoning ordinance that classified the area containing the Moffatt property as exclusively residential, making the meat market a legal non-conforming use.
- The ordinance stipulated that if a building with a non-conforming use was damaged to 60% or more of its reproduction value, it could not be restored for that non-conforming use.
- On July 20, 1960, a fire almost entirely destroyed the residential portion of the Moffatts' building and significantly damaged the meat market portion.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Forrest City filed suit against the Moffatts in the Chancery Court, a court of first instance, seeking to enjoin them from reconstructing their building for use as a meat market.
- The Chancellor viewed the premises and held several hearings.
- The Chancery Court found for the City, ruling that the building was more than 60% destroyed and issued an injunction preventing the reconstruction for non-conforming use.
- The Moffatts (appellants) appealed the Chancery Court's decree to the Arkansas Supreme Court, with the City of Forrest City as the appellee.
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 the fire damage to the Moffatts' combined residential and commercial building exceed 60% of its reproduction value, thereby prohibiting its reconstruction for a non-conforming commercial use under the city's zoning ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Ed. F. McFaddin
Yes. The fire damage to the Moffatts' building exceeded 60% of its reproduction value, preventing its reconstruction for the non-conforming use as a meat market. While zoning ordinances are to be strictly construed in favor of property owners, this case turns on a factual determination of the percentage of damage. The court gives deference to the trial court's factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence. Witnesses testified that the building's pre-fire value was approximately $15,000 and restoration would cost around $12,000, placing the damage well over the 60% threshold. The court treated the residence and market as a single structure for this calculation and concluded that the trial court's finding was not against the preponderance of the evidence.
Analysis:
This case illustrates a common method municipalities use to eliminate non-conforming uses over time. The court's decision upholds the validity of 'destruction clauses' in zoning ordinances, which prevent property owners from rebuilding non-conforming structures after substantial damage, thereby forcing the property to eventually conform to the current zoning plan. It also reinforces the principle of appellate deference to a trial court's factual findings, especially when the trial judge has directly observed the evidence, such as personally viewing the premises. The ruling clarifies that for a mixed-use property, the damage calculation applies to the entire structure, not just the non-conforming portion.
