Colorado § 30-28-120 - Existing structures - county property.

§ 30-28-120. Existing structures - county property.

(1) The lawful use of a building or structure or the lawful use of any land, as existing and lawful at the time of the adoption of a zoning resolution or, in the case of an amendment of a resolution, at the time of such amendment, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of such resolution or amendment, and such use may be extended throughout the same building if no structural alteration of such building is proposed or made for the purpose of such extension. The addition of a solar energy device or a device used as part of a system that uses geothermal energy for water heating or space heating or cooling to such building shall not necessarily be considered a structural alteration. The board of county commissioners may provide in any zoning resolution for the restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon such terms and conditions as may be set forth in the zoning resolution.

(2) If any county acquires title to any property by reason of tax delinquency and such property is not redeemed as provided by law, the future use of such property shall be in conformity with the then provisions of the zoning resolution of the county, or with any amendment of such resolution, equally applicable to other like properties within the district in which the property acquired by the county is located.

Source: L. 39: p. 306, § 19. CSA: C. 45A, § 19. CRS 53: § 106-2-19. C.R.S. 1963: § 106-2-19. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 1162, § 8, effective May 25. L. 2003: (1) amended, p. 2667, § 3, effective June 6. L. 2022: (1) amended, (SB 22-118), ch. 335, p. 2372, § 7, effective August 10.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2003 act amending subsection (1), see section 1 of chapter 420, Session Laws of Colorado 2003.

ANNOTATION

A county zoning resolution was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconstitutional in that it provided that, if a non-conforming use of land, preserved under this section, was discontinued for one year, any further use of the premises must conform to the provisions of the resolution. Beszedes v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 116 Colo. 123, 178 P.2d 950 (1947).

Declaration as to public nuisance. Where the legislative arm of the government has declared by statute and zoning resolution what activities may or may not be conducted in a prescribed zone, it has in effect declared what is or is not a public nuisance. Robinson Brick Co. v. Luthi, 115 Colo. 106, 169 P.2d 171 (1946).

Landowner cannot create his own hardship and then require that zoning regulations be changed to meet that hardship. C.F. Lytle Co. v. Clark, 491 F.2d 834 (10th Cir. 1974).

This section only applies to valid nonconforming uses. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Mtn. Air Ranch, 192 Colo. 364, 563 P.2d 341 (1977).

Conditional use is a use which is permitted within the zone, but which because of the possibility that the permitted use could become incompatible in certain respects with other uses within the zone, special permission is required before the land may be put to that use. Elam v. Albers, 44 Colo. App. 281, 616 P.2d 168 (1980).

Uses permitted by particular zoning classification are not vested rights, and subsequent zoning changes are binding on the owners of the property affected. Elam v. Albers, 44 Colo. App. 281, 616 P.2d 168 (1980).

And issuance of conditional use permit creates no greater right in property owners than they would have possessed had they desired to develop in conformance with any other use permitted within the zone. Elam v. Albers, 44 Colo. App. 281, 616 P.2d 168 (1980).

Conditional use permit only represents determination that, as to the land, a use additional to those generally permitted will be allowed. Elam v. Albers, 44 Colo. App. 281, 616 P.2d 168 (1980).

A restriction on the right to expand or extend a nonconforming use is valid. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Mtn. Air Ranch, 192 Colo. 364, 563 P.2d 341 (1977).

For purposes of this section, preparation for use is not equal to actual use. There are no grounds for the operation of this section to protect a residential use where there was no residential use at the time the zoning resolution affecting the property was adopted. This is so even where prior law authorized the construction of a residence on the property affected. Wilkinson v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 872 P.2d 1269 (Colo. App. 1993).