Most towns and cities in Iowa have enacted city ordinances addressing the keeping of certain types of livestock within city limits. However, there is a doctrine called “prior nonconforming use” that protects those property owners that have historically kept livestock on their land before the enactment of the ordinances or before the annexation of their land. Here, the Iowa Court of Appeals protected landowner rights when they reversed a city’s and lower court’s decision to bar a resident from keeping livestock on a 7-acre pasture within the city limits that had historically been used for the keeping of livestock. Historically, the contained two homes, a garage, barn, machine shed, out-sheds, and a pasture used to raise livestock. The “pasture-parcel” was used solely as a place to keep livestock and contained no structures. The land had been used this way since 1936. In 1955, the city enacted its first zoning ordinance and deemed the land “agricultural.” Subsequently, the property owners bought a smaller lot across the road that they also used for keeping livestock. The city allowed this use for many years. In 1983, the city enacted a new zoning ordinance and zoned the entire property for only residential use. From 1936 to the current era, the land had only been used to keep cattle, horses, mules, and sheep. The city never objected… until now.
When the defendant inherited the property from his aunt in 2007, he continued to use the property in the same way. The city objected, claiming that only the previous owners had “permission” to use the land for the keeping of livestock. The defendant refused to move the livestock and the city cited him for violating the city ordinance. The case proceeded to trial and the court found in favor of the city, despite the defendant’s use of the “prior nonconforming use” doctrine. The court found that the land could only be used for single family residences.
The main issue on appeal to the Iowa Court of Appeals is whether the defendant established a prior non-conforming use. Iowa courts have routinely held that “a nonconforming use is one that existed and was lawful when the zoning restriction became effective and which as continued to exist since that time.” According to the appellate court, after a defendant establishes a prior nonconforming use, the burden is on the city to show a violation of the ordinance. This type of nonconforming use “runs with the land,” meaning that a change in ownership of the land does not destroy the right to use the property as it has been used in the past. In essence, the right to use the land in this way attaches to the land itself and is not personal to the current owner. Here, the zoning ordinances themselves allowed for nonconforming uses. City of Clear Lake v. Kramer, No. 0-503/09-1689 (Iowa Ct. App., Aug. 11, 2010).