Edmonds v. County of Los Angeles

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating nonconforming use rights are 20 protected, but concluding plaintiffs’ continuing use was not similar to the use existing at 21 the time the zoning ordinance became effective
• quoted in 4 Rathkopf, The Laws of Zoning and Planning, § 51.06, at 68 (1988)
• “The rights of users of property as those rights existed at the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance are well recognized and have always been protected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).