## Facts

- AVR, Inc. owned and operated a ready-mix concrete plant in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, originally constructed in 1954.
- Under the City’s zoning history, the plant became a preexisting nonconforming use; in 1973 the City eliminated ready-mix plants as permitted uses.
- AVR purchased the plant in 1974 for $260,000.
- The City’s 1990 comprehensive plan called for heavy industrial uses in the area, including the plant, to be phased out in favor of high-density residential development.
- In 1992 the City rezoned AVR’s property from industrial to multifamily residential and authorized the City Council to set amortization periods to terminate nonconforming uses, based on factors including the use’s nature and location and the public benefit versus the owner’s burden.
- In 1995 the City adopted an ordinance setting a two-year amortization period for AVR’s nonconforming ready-mix operations, after which the use had to cease.
- The City relied on professional analyses indicating the plant had been fully depreciated for tax purposes and that AVR had realized a substantial return on investment (about 560%), supporting a finding that the plant had exceeded its useful life.
- AVR sued seeking declaratory relief, asserting the amortization ordinance and two-year period violated due process, equal protection, vested rights, and constituted an uncompensated taking.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the City; AVR appealed, focusing on due process reasonableness and equal protection.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s ordinance setting a two-year amortization period to terminate AVR’s preexisting nonconforming use was unreasonable, thereby violating due process.
2. Whether the amortization ordinance violated equal protection by treating AVR differently from similarly situated property owners.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City.
- The court treated adoption of an amortization ordinance as a legislative act entitled to great judicial deference.
- The court held the two-year amortization period was reasonable in light of the plant’s useful life analysis, AVR’s return on investment, and the City’s stated planning objectives.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim because AVR did not show disparate treatment of similarly situated property owners.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality’s adoption of an ordinance establishing an amortization period for a preexisting nonconforming use is a legislative act reviewed with great deference.
- An amortization period satisfies due process if it is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable and bears a rational relationship to legitimate land-use objectives.
- Reasonableness of amortization may be supported by evidence of the use’s economic useful life, depreciation status, the owner’s return on investment, and a public-benefit/owner-burden assessment.
- Equal protection challenges to land-use regulation generally require proof that similarly situated property owners received more favorable treatment; absent such a showing, the claim fails.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the City’s two-year amortization period terminating AVR’s nonconforming ready-mix concrete operations, finding the legislative decision reasonable and rationally related to comprehensive planning goals, and concluding AVR failed to establish unequal treatment of similarly situated property owners.


AVR, Inc. v. City of St. Louis Park, 585 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)