Fuller v. Springville City
355 P.3d 1063
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- David and Ruth Fuller own a house in Springville zoned for single-family use but have a basement apartment they use as a multifamily dwelling.
- Springville City learned of the basement unit and notified the Fullers it violated zoning; Fullers applied for a Certificate of Nonconformity claiming a preexisting lawful multifamily use.
- The Community Development Director denied the certificate, finding the lot size and zoning never would have permitted multifamily use; the Board of Adjustment affirmed after an administrative remand and additional proceedings.
- The Fullers sued in district court raising multiple claims (including constitutional challenges and tort/bad-faith allegations) and sought judicial review of the Board’s denial; the district court granted summary judgment to Springville on most claims and limited remaining challenges for review.
- The district court ultimately granted summary judgment to Springville on the petition for review and later dismissed the Fullers’ remaining constitutional claims with prejudice; the Fullers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether city enforcement of zoning against the basement apartment is an unconstitutional taking | Fuller: ordinance enforcement constitutes an uncompensated taking of property | Springville: argument unpreserved below; no takings ruling presented to Board or district court | Not reached on the merits—issue unpreserved on appeal and declined |
| Which statutory scheme governs the Board’s review (1953/1975 law vs. modern law) | Fuller: Board should have applied law as of annexation (1953/1975) rather than current municipal law | Springville: Board applied applicable standards; Fuller failed to raise version-of-law issue to Board | Unpreserved before the Board; appellate court declines to consider it |
| Whether the Board denied Fuller opportunity to present evidence of public welfare under older statute | Fuller: older statute required opportunity to present public-welfare evidence before depriving preexisting use | Springville: Board denied because Fullers failed to prove the use was ever lawfully established | Court: even if older statute applied, Board’s finding that use was never lawfully established is dispositive; no reversible error shown |
| Merits of nonconforming-use denial (burden of proof and substantial evidence) | Fuller: asserts multifamily use was longstanding and lawful | Springville: ordinance and statute place burden on owner to prove a lawful nonconforming use; record lacks such proof | Held: Board’s denial supported by substantial evidence; not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal |
Key Cases Cited
- Pen & Ink, LLC v. Alpine City, 238 P.3d 63 (Utah Ct. App.) (review of land use authority decision as if direct appeal)
- Xanthos v. Board of Adjustment of Salt Lake City, 685 P.2d 1032 (Utah 1984) (board-of-adjustment decisions reviewed under substantial-evidence standard)
- Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Florez v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 240 P.3d 107 (Utah Ct. App.) (appellate preservation rules)