## Facts

- Cecilia and Manuel Cigarrilha owned a three-unit rental property at 18 Bellevue Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island.
- The property was located in a zoning district that permitted no more than a two-family dwelling.
- After a 2006 fire and related electrical-service interruption, the owners sought permits to restore electrical meters.
- A municipal inspection determined the property was being used as a three-family dwelling, which violated the zoning ordinance.
- The City’s building official determined the three-family use was illegal and that the owners could not lawfully maintain three dwelling units.
- The owners claimed the three-family use predated the zoning restriction and therefore constituted a lawful, pre-existing nonconforming use, relying in part on historical tax records and assessments.

## Issues

1. Whether the owners proved a lawful, pre-existing nonconforming right to use the property as a three-family dwelling in a two-family zoning district.
2. Whether the City should be equitably estopped from enforcing the two-family limitation based on prior municipal conduct, including historical tax treatment.
3. Whether laches barred the City from enforcing the zoning ordinance due to delay and resulting prejudice.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment for the City.
- The Court upheld the trial justice’s refusal to declare the three-family use a lawful, pre-existing nonconforming use.
- The Court held equitable estoppel did not apply because the owners failed to show an affirmative municipal representation (or equivalent conduct) that induced detrimental reliance.
- The Court held laches did not bar enforcement because the record did not establish the requisite unreasonable delay and prejudice warranting equitable relief against zoning enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- A party asserting a legal nonconforming use bears the burden to prove the use lawfully existed before the zoning restriction took effect and continued thereafter without interruption.
- In a declaratory-judgment action, appellate review examines whether the trial court abused its discretion, misinterpreted the law, overlooked material facts, or exceeded its authority; nonjury factual findings are afforded great deference unless clearly wrong or based on overlooked or misconceived material evidence.
- Equitable estoppel requires (1) an affirmative representation or equivalent conduct directed to induce action or inaction and (2) actual detrimental reliance; application against governmental entities is disfavored and applied with caution.
- Laches is an equitable defense generally requiring unreasonable delay and resulting prejudice; equitable defenses are narrowly applied when asserted to bar municipal enforcement of zoning laws.

## Conclusion

The court left the three-family use classified as unlawful in a two-family district because the owners did not prove a lawful pre-existing nonconforming use and failed to establish the elements necessary for equitable estoppel or laches to prevent municipal zoning enforcement.


Cigarrilha v. City of Providence, 64 A.3d 1208 (R.I. 2013)