Our Feed

We are involved in our communities, our profession, and our clients' associations and activities.

A resident claims that various junk has been kept on his property “forever.” Can we still enforce our blight regulations against him, or is his junk “grandfathered” in?

 You can still enforce your blight regulations, provided they are not part of your zoning ordinance. “Grandfathering” is a colloquial term commonly used to describe a nonconformity, meaning something that predated a regulation that later rendered it unlawful. However, this concept only applies to zoning ordinances—not to general law or “police power” ordinances, which regulate activities rather than land uses. In the zoning context, a use or structure can generally be characterized as lawfully nonconforming and exempt from zoning regulations if it: 1) was lawful at the time it was established; 2) was later rendered unlawful by a change in zoning regulations; and 3) was never abandoned. An example of this would be a gas station that was established before a township adopted zoning. Even if the township adopts a zoning ordinance that prohibits gas stations in the district in question, the property owner possesses a vested right in their previously established use, and can continue to engage in that use, so long as it is not expanded. However, blight or nuisance ordinances are generally not zoning ordinances, and as a result there is no “grandfathering” in of violations. This means that even if a resident has kept junk on their property for decades before you adopted your blight ordinance, the resident still has to comply with that ordinance.

Author

Recent Articles & Announcements

  1. Are municipal cell tower leases ...

    Yes, cell tower leases can generate a steady stream of revenue and, in many cases, have automatic “renewal terms” which, in the aggregat...

    Read More
  2. Where Data Meets Land Use: A Mic...

    The rise of data centers across Michigan has generated significant public attention and, in many communities, considerable apprehension. Loc...

    Read More
  3. Debunking Michigan’s Myth Abou...

    In Plachta v Plachta, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 374260), the Michigan Court of Appeals confirmed what should have be...

    Read More
Talk to an Attorney
Request a Consultation

At Fahey Schultz Burzych Rhodes PLC, we’ve been helping municipalities, franchised businesses, employers, and more with their legal needs since 2008. We’d love to learn how we can help you, too.