Trail Side LLC v. Village of Romeo, 331747

Background

Trail Side LLC bought two parcels in Romeo in 2012 that had been used since 1984 by the Claerhouts for industrial purposes (Denmic Equipment Company), including a large pole barn and outdoor storage of materials and equipment.
The property had been rezoned from industrial to R-1 (single-family) before 2012, but the prior industrial use continued afterward; the assessor taxed the property as commercial through 2014.
After Trail Side cleaned parts of the site, the Village issued zoning citations for storage of loose material and an unscreened truck; Rogers (Trail Side’s managing member and agent) later was cited for zoning violations.
In April 2015 Rogers petitioned the Zoning Board of Appeals to recognize the property’s prior nonconforming industrial use and permit continuation of the same activities (storage, mechanical work, welding, painting, etc.).
A four‑member ZBA unanimously denied the petition, stating concern about industrial use in a residential area and lack of assurance of Rogers’ future intentions; plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the ZBA.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the right to continue a lawful prior nonconforming use runs with the land and the ZBA’s denial conflicted with that law; the nonconforming use may continue in substantially the same size and essential nature but may not be expanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a lawful prior nonconforming use transfers with the land on sale	Nonconforming use is a vested right that runs with the land; Trail Side may continue Claerhouts’ industrial use	Change of ownership extinguished the nonconforming right; the right belongs to the prior owner and Rogers (as petitioner) lacked ownership interest	The right runs with the land; Trail Side may continue the prior nonconforming use in substantially the same size and nature
Whether the ZBA denial was supported by competent, material, substantial evidence and proper legal reasoning	ZBA failed to apply law; it denied continuation based on subjective opposition to industrial use and lack of assurance about plans	ZBA properly exercised discretion; denial supported by record and procedural issues about standing and filings	ZBA misapplied the law; record shows the use existed continuously and ZBA’s stated reason was legally insufficient, so denial was improper
Whether Trail Side/Rogers sought to expand the prior nonconforming use	Plaintiffs contended they sought only to continue the same use as predecessors, not expand it	Village asserted there was no assurance and implied expansion or improper use	Court found plaintiffs sought continuation, not expansion; continuance allowed but expansion prohibited
Whether a ZBA member’s conflict required relief	Plaintiffs argued Fowler had an actual conflict (adjacent owner, outbid buyer, offered to buy at hearing)	Village said any conflict was irrelevant because decision was unanimous and Rogers lacked standing	Court did not decide the conflict issue on the merits but noted facts suggesting a conflict; remand limits relief to recognition of prior use, so conflict need not be resolved here

Key Cases Cited

Heath Twp v Sall, 442 Mich 434 (1993) (prior nonconforming use is a vested right protected after zoning change)
Norton Shores v Carr, 81 Mich App 715 (1977) (scope of nonconforming use includes physical and functional characteristics; nonconforming uses may not be enlarged)
Eveline Twp v H & D Trucking Co, 181 Mich App 25 (1989) (continuation must be substantially same size and essential nature)
Austin v Older, 283 Mich 667 (1938) (cessation of nonconforming use may constitute unconstitutional deprivation of property)
Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50 (2009) (standard of review for circuit court review of zoning board appeals)
Edw C Levy Co v Marine City Zoning Bd of Appeals, 293 Mich App 333 (2011) (circuit court’s review criteria for zoning board decisions)