(a) Intent; Interpretation.
(1) Within the zoning districts established by this Zoning Code or amendment thereof, there may exist lots, structures and uses of land which were lawful before this Zoning Code was enacted or amended, but which would be prohibited in the future under the terms of this Zoning Code or amendment thereto.
(2) It is the intent of the Village of Edgar to permit nonconforming uses, lots and structures to remain and continue in accordance with the provisions hereinafter set forth until they are removed due to economic forces, public health or safety grounds, or otherwise. It is not the intent of this Zoning Code to perpetuate and/or encourage the long-term continuance of nonconformities because they are inconsistent with the requirements and character of the districts involved, or to permit nonconformities to be generally enlarged upon, expanded, or extended except as provided for herein. Existing nonconformities shall not be used to justify adding structures or uses prohibited in the zoning district.
(b) Classification of Nonconformities. Zoning nonconformities are classified into three (3) categories as follows:
(1) Nonconforming uses.
(2) Nonconforming lots.
(3) Nonconforming structures.
(c) General Guidelines. It is the intention of the Village of Edgar that standards be set forth for the purpose of determining:
(1) That the nonconforming use, lot or structure existed prior to the effective date of this Chapter or amendment thereto;
(2) The ways in which the right of the nonconforming use, lot or structure to remain can be preserved and the ways in which the right to continue nonconforming use, lot or structure can be lost;
(3) The extent of permissible variation in the nonconforming use, lot or structure; and
(4) The devices available for eliminating such nonconforming uses, lots or structures, where appropriate.
(d) Burden of Proof Regarding Nonconforming Uses. Any property owner asserting as a defense to a charge of violating this Chapter because his/her property is a valid nonconforming use has the burden of demonstrating to reasonable certainty by the greater weight of credible evidence that:
(1) The nonconforming use was legally in existence at the time the zoning ordinance provision that now prohibits that use was adopted. The use must be lawful under then existing zoning regulations and cannot contravene such zoning requirements.
(2) That the use of the property prior to the nonconformity came into being was so active and actual that the property owner can properly assert that the property owner has acquired a vested interest in its continuance. Such use cannot be occasional or sporadic. For purposes of this Chapter, a property owner shall be deemed to have a vested right in the use of his/her property where that use at the time the nonconfor- mity came into being is both actual and active and a substantial degree of activity or expense had been undertaken prior to the effective date the zoning provision that caused the nonconformity to come into being. Such use must be more than incidental or accessory to the principal use of the property.
(3) That the use is substantially the same use that existed prior to the enactment of the ordinance or amendment thereto that caused the nonconformity.