Village of Chadwick v. Nelson, 95 N.E.3d 1230

Talea and Dean Nelson owned a 2.5-acre parcel in the Village of Chadwick used for hay production (via an oral arrangement with a neighbor who planted, mowed, baled, and removed hay) and, beginning March 2016, a small commercial calf-nursing operation (about 19 calves by Aug. 2016).
On July 11, 2016, the Village adopted Ordinance No. 540, which broadly prohibited keeping live cattle and many other animals within Village limits and imposed daily fines for violations.
On July 23, 2016, Village police observed several calves on the Nelsons’ property and issued Talea a citation under Ordinance No. 540; no negligent operation was alleged.
At bench trial, the court found the hay-baling constituted a small farming operation but concluded the later introduction of calves created a new "feedlot" operation within one year of the ordinance, and convicted Talea under the ordinance.
Talea argued the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/0.01 et seq.) preempted enforcement because the land had been used as a farm for more than one year prior to the ordinance; the trial court rejected that defense.
The appellate court reversed, holding the Act’s plain language protects the Nelsons’ ongoing agricultural use (including the hay activity predating the ordinance), so enforcement of the ordinance was preempted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enforcement of a village nuisance ordinance against the Nelsons was preempted by the Farm Nuisance Suit Act	Ordinance applies because the farm’s significant operation began when livestock were introduced in March 2016; prior hay activity was de minimis and not an "operationally significant" farm	The parcel constituted a "farm" under the Act (feeding/breeding/management of livestock; haying) and had been in agricultural use >1 year before the ordinance, so the Act preempts local nuisance enforcement	Reversed: the Act’s plain language broadly protects farms; the haying/use predating the ordinance made the changed ordinance a "changed condition" and barred enforcement absent negligent operation

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (upholding local land-use controls)
Dube v. City of Chicago, 7 Ill. 2d 313 (upholding municipal nuisance regulation in context of contested harms)
Rosehill Cemetery Co. v. City of Chicago, 352 Ill. 11 (recognizing local determinations about nuisances and land uses)
Village of Mundelein v. Wisconsin Central R.R., 227 Ill. 2d 281 (local ordinances cannot conflict with state law)
Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 2012 IL 113569 (Farm Nuisance Suit Act broadly protects farms against nuisance suits when farm operated >1 year)
Village of LaFayette v. Brown, 2015 IL App (3d) 130445 (enactment of restrictive ordinance is a "changed condition" under the Act; change in crops/ownership does not defeat protection)