Code Section: 180

Subject: Substandard lots of record

Effective Date: 12/91

Interpretation:

   While the Redevelopment Plan for the Diamond Heights Redevelopment Area had jurisdiction over that area, the Planning Code had no jurisdiction. When this redevelopment area was closed out as of October 1, 1991, the Planning Code regained jurisdiction. This Section discusses the handling of substandard lots of record. Substandard lots, legally created under the Diamond Heights Redevelopment Area will be considered to be legal lots of record.

Code Section: 180

Subject: Noncomplying residence, relocation of

Effective Date: /93

Interpretation:

   This Section defines noncomplying structures and states that they are incompatible with the purposes of this Code and that noncomplying situations should be brought into compliance with the Code. In the case where a large garage existed in the buildable area of a lot and a small residence existed at the rear of the lot, the dwelling could be removed from the rear yard building and built on the top of the garage, provided that the noncomplying building at the rear not become more noncomplying.

Code Section: 181

Subject: Alteration of nonconforming building

Effective Date: 7/86

Interpretation:

   See Interpretation 186 Limited commercial use, consolidation

Code Section: 181

Subject: Nonconforming garment shop, intensification

Effective Date: 6/68

Interpretation:

   This Section says that a nonconforming use shall not be intensified. Any increase in the number of sewing machines in a nonconforming sewing factory would constitute an intensification.

Code Section: 181

Subject: Alteration of a nonconforming use

Effective Date: 12/85 (Revised 3/21)

Interpretation:

   This Section governs the enlargement, alteration, and reconstruction of nonconforming uses and says that generally, nonconforming uses may not be enlarged, intensified, or moved to another location but that alterations may be allowed “any portion of the structure that will not thereafter be occupied by the nonconforming use.” A building was nonconforming because it legally contained four units which is one more unit than would be permitted in the current zoning district. The owner wanted to enlarge three of the units by moving one to a noncomplying building in the rear yard and expanding existing units into its space. This was allowed provided the owner thereafter designated one unit as the nonconforming unit which would not be able to be enlarged beyond the existing building’s envelope or moved for as long as there were nonconforming units on the lot. (Previous rulings stated that noncomplying structures in the rear yards can be converted to dwellings provided there is no expansion of the structure.) Also, the owner must seek and justify a variance if the rear, noncomplying building does not already contain a dwelling unit because making such building a dwelling exacerbates the rear yard deficiency (see Interpretation 188(a) below). Further, the owner may not always have the option of which unit to designate as the nonconforming unit. In this case, after the unit proposed to be in the noncomplying building is established in the noncomplying building, it would have to be considered the nonconforming unit under principles established by other Zoning Administrator determinations.