## Facts

- In 1924, Andrew Harbison, Sr. bought property in Buffalo, built a small frame building, and began operating a cooperage business.
- Over time, the operation shifted to reconditioning, cleaning, and painting used steel drums, with hundreds stored outdoors and stacked in the yard.
- The area was originally industrial, but later became residential with houses adjoining the property and across the street.
- Beginning in 1926, the property was generally zoned residential (later designated an R3 dwelling district), making the business a nonconforming use.
- In 1936, the City treated the operation as a “junk dealer” use and issued a junk-dealer license; the license was renewed annually through the 1956 fiscal year.
- In 1953, Buffalo amended its zoning ordinances to require certain nonconforming uses (including junk-yard-type uses) to terminate after a three-year amortization period.
- After the three-year period expired, the City refused to renew Harbison’s license and directed cessation of operations.

## Issues

1. Whether Harbison’s operation qualified as a lawful preexisting nonconforming use despite alleged historic noncompliance with earlier licensing requirements.
2. Whether Harbison was entitled to issuance or renewal of a junk-dealer license notwithstanding claimed noncompliance with ordinance conditions (including fencing requirements).
3. Whether the 1953 ordinance’s three-year amortization requirement, as applied to Harbison’s established business, was a valid exercise of the police power or an unconstitutional taking/denial of due process.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and rejected Harbison’s challenge.
- The court upheld the City’s three-year amortization provision as a valid zoning measure and sustained the City’s refusal to renew the license after the amortization period expired.
- The court concluded the amortization requirement was not unconstitutional as applied because it was a reasonable, nonconfiscatory method to eliminate incompatible nonconforming uses in a residential district.
- A dissent argued that compelled termination of a long-standing lawful use without compensation exceeded the police power and amounted to an unconstitutional taking.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning may restrict and regulate nonconforming uses, reflecting a public policy favoring their eventual elimination when incompatible with the permitted district character.
- A municipality may require termination of a previously lawful nonconforming use after a reasonable amortization period, without paying compensation, if the measure is not arbitrary or confiscatory.
- Constitutional challenges sounding in due process or takings generally fail where the ordinance reasonably relates to public welfare and provides a reasonable period for the owner to adjust or recoup investment.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Buffalo’s use of amortization to phase out a nonconforming junk-yard/cooperage operation in a residential district, holding that a three-year termination period was a reasonable police-power regulation and did not require compensation.


Matter of Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 N.Y.2d 553 (N.Y. 1958)