## Facts

- Louie Moffatt and his wife owned a home in a Forrest City residential area and later added space used as a meat market and meat processing operation.
- In 1959, the city adopted a zoning ordinance making the area residential; the meat market became a lawful nonconforming use.
- The ordinance provided that if a building used for a nonconforming use was damaged to at least 60% of its reproduction value (excluding foundations), it could not be restored for any nonconforming use.
- A fire substantially destroyed the residential portion and significantly damaged the market portion of the structure.
- The City sued in chancery court to enjoin reconstruction for use as a meat market, alleging the 60% damage threshold was met.
- Evidence included testimony valuing the building at roughly $15,000 with repair costs around $12,000, along with other testimony; the structure was treated as a single building containing both residence and market.
- The chancellor viewed the premises, found damage at or above 60% of reproduction value (excluding foundations), and enjoined reconstruction of the building (or any building on the premises) for use as a meat market.

## Issues

1. Whether zoning ordinances restricting property use must be strictly construed in favor of the property owner.
2. Whether the City proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the building was damaged to at least 60% of its reproduction value (excluding foundations), triggering the ordinance’s bar on restoration for a nonconforming use.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the injunction.
- The court agreed that zoning ordinances are strictly construed in favor of property owners.
- Applying that approach, the court held the decisive question was factual: whether damage met the ordinance’s 60% threshold.
- The court upheld the chancellor’s finding that the building, treated as one structure, was damaged at least 60% of its reproduction value (excluding foundations).
- Because the threshold was met, the ordinance prohibited restoring the building for the nonconforming meat market use.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning ordinances, as restrictions on otherwise lawful property use, are strictly construed in favor of the property owner.
- A zoning provision terminating a nonconforming use upon damage meeting a stated percentage of reproduction value is enforceable when the factual threshold is proven.
- When a mixed-use structure is treated as a single building under the ordinance, damage to all portions may be considered in determining whether the destruction threshold is met.
- In equity review, appellate courts give weight to the chancellor’s resolution of conflicting evidence, particularly where the chancellor personally inspected the property.

## Conclusion

The court held that although zoning limits are strictly construed for property owners, the City proved the building’s fire damage met the ordinance’s 60% destruction standard, so the nonconforming meat market could not be restored and an injunction against reconstruction for that use was proper.


Moffatt v. Forrest City, 234 Ark. 12, 350 S.W.2d 327 (Ark. 1961)