Featured Case

Contact:      Brian T. Hodges

Gray owned a mobile home park in Des Moines, Washington.  During the 1970s the park was annexed by the City and later rezoned to a commercial zone.  The mobile home park operated as a nonconforming use after the rezone.  In 1992, the City adopted an ordinance requiring existing mobile home parks to submit a site plan as a prerequisite for obtaining or renewing a City business license.  Gray never submitted a plan, but the City continued to renew Gray’s business license and issue “move-on” permits for replacement mobile homes.

In 1999, the City established a six-month moratorium on land use permits.  Realizing that Gray had never submitted a site plan, officials declared that the mobile home park was therefore not a permitted use.  When Gray attempted to negotiate, he was asked if he would sell his property for redevelopment.

Gray refused and filed a lawsuit claiming a regulatory taking, claiming that the 1992 site plan rule terminated the company’s right to lease mobile home spaces.  The appellate court ruled that the City was properly exercising its police power, that leasing property for mobile home use is not a fundamental attribute of ownership and, therefore, no regulatory taking occurred.

PLF will argue that the appellate court erred when it found no taking occurred.  The right to use property as a mobile home park is a fundamental attribute of ownership.  In addition, PLF will argue that nonconforming uses in Washington state are vested or protected rights that are allowed to continue without immediate termination.  If such rights are destroyed, a taking has occurred requiring just compensation.