## Facts

- A large tract in East Greenwich, Rhode Island (including “Lot 24”) was used for equestrian activities beginning in 1954, including riding, training, and breeding horses.
- After zoning changes restricted horse farms, the equestrian use continued as a lawful prior nonconforming use.
- In the late 1990s, James and Paula Malm bought the property intending to build the “East Greenwich Preserve” condominium development.
- The Town rezoned Lot 24 and part of another lot first to Commercial Limited and then to Planned Development Residential (PDR-30), classifications that prohibited horse farms.
- As a condition of development approval, the Malms granted a conservation easement over about 2.7 acres of Lot 24 (the “corral area”) that, among other things, expressly allowed “the grazing of horses and/or similar animals” and maintenance consistent with prior conditions.
- After the condominium project was constructed on the other lot, the Malms sold Lot 24 to Larry and Lisa Milder, who began keeping horses and other animals on Lot 24.
- The Town cited the Milders for zoning violations based on horse-keeping under the then-current zoning.
- The Milders filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment that keeping horses on Lot 24 was a lawful nonconforming use.
- Neighboring property owners, including Robert M. Duffy, intervened and moved for summary judgment, arguing the equestrian use had been abandoned before the Milders’ purchase and was therefore barred.

## Issues

1. Whether the historic equestrian use of Lot 24 had been abandoned so as to terminate its protection as a lawful prior nonconforming use.
2. Whether rezoning to classifications prohibiting horse farms, together with development conditions and the conservation easement, extinguished or barred horse-keeping on Lot 24.
3. Whether the summary-judgment record supported declaratory relief recognizing horse-keeping on Lot 24 as a lawful nonconforming use.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment for the Milders.
- The Court held that keeping horses on Lot 24 constituted a lawful, continuing nonconforming use.
- The Court rejected the intervening neighbors’ contention that the use had been abandoned as a matter of law.
- The Court relied in part on the development approvals and conservation easement language expressly permitting grazing horses in the corral area as consistent with continued horse-related use.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful nonconforming use is protected when it lawfully existed before restrictive zoning and has continued without abandonment.
- Abandonment of a nonconforming use is not established solely by rezoning or by a shift in surrounding land uses; it requires satisfaction of the applicable abandonment standard.
- Governmental approvals and recorded instruments associated with redevelopment (including easements) may be relevant to whether continuation of a prior use was contemplated and whether abandonment occurred.
- On summary judgment, the movant must show the undisputed facts compel a legal conclusion; if the record does not establish abandonment as a matter of law, a declaration recognizing a continuing nonconforming use may be upheld.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a declaratory judgment allowing the Milders to keep horses on Lot 24, concluding the property’s equestrian use remained a lawful nonconforming use and was not terminated by the later rezoning, redevelopment process, or alleged abandonment.


Duffy v. Milder, 896 A.2d 27 (R.I. 2006)