Which term describes a land use that is impermissible under current zoning restrictions but that is allowed because the use was lawful before the restrictions took effect?

• A. Spot zoning
• B. Special exception
• C. Nonconforming use
• D. Use variance

Answer: (D)

The concept being tested is nonconforming use. This describes a land use that was lawful under the zoning in place at the time the ordinance changed, but would be prohibited under the new rules. The use is allowed to continue because the property had a vested, preexisting use that the current zoning does not retroactively erase. It’s like a “grandfathered” use—permitted to continue, though it may not be expanded or newly established under the current zoning.

This differs from a use variance, which would permit a use that the zoning would normally prohibit, based on proving hardship and obtaining approval from the zoning board. A variance is not tied to a use that was legal before the restrictions; it’s about granting permission to depart from the current rules.

It also isn’t spot zoning, which involves approving a special, unusual zoning change for a specific property to benefit a particular owner.

So, the described situation fits nonconforming use: a lawful preexisting use allowed to continue despite a new prohibition in the zoning ordinance, rather than a new exception or deviation from the rule.