## Facts

- Parkview Associates bought a Manhattan parcel near Park Avenue and East 96th Street and planned an apartment building.
- Part of the parcel lay within a Special Park Improvement District that, by governing resolution, limited new buildings to 19 stories or 210 feet.
- A later amendment adjusted district boundaries for certain blocks, and an accompanying zoning map was ambiguously drawn.
- Parkview and a Department of Buildings superintendent misread the map as shifting the boundary so that the 19-story/210-foot limit did not apply to a portion of Parkview’s lot beyond 100 feet from Park Avenue.
- Parkview submitted plans allowing a 31-story portion; the City approved the plans and issued a permit.
- After substantial construction, a new borough superintendent discovered the zoning error, issued a stop-work order for work beyond 19 stories, and the Commissioner partially revoked the permit as invalid.
- The Board of Standards and Appeals sustained the revocation; Parkview sought relief in an Article 78 proceeding, asserting good-faith reliance, vested rights, estoppel, and constitutional claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the City could be estopped from revoking a building permit that conflicted with governing zoning limits when the developer relied on the permit in good faith and substantially completed construction.
2. Whether substantial construction and expenditures under an erroneously issued permit created vested rights to complete the nonconforming building.
3. Whether revocation to enforce zoning limits effected an unconstitutional taking or violated due process, where a variance application remained pending.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the order upholding the partial permit revocation.
- The City was not estopped from enforcing zoning restrictions and correcting the erroneous issuance of an invalid permit.
- Parkview did not obtain vested rights to continue construction in violation of zoning limits based on reliance on an invalid permit.
- The Court declined to decide the takings and due process claims because a variance application was still pending.

## Legal Principles

- Municipalities generally cannot be estopped from enforcing zoning and land-use laws or compelled to ratify an unlawfully issued permit.
- A narrow exception permitting estoppel against government does not apply where reasonable diligence by a good-faith applicant would have revealed the governing restrictions and the administrative error.
- Reliance expenditures and substantial completion do not create vested rights to proceed under a permit that was invalid when issued because it conflicted with controlling zoning provisions.
- Constitutional challenges to enforcement actions may be premature where administrative relief (such as a variance) remains available and unresolved.

## Conclusion

The court held that the City could revoke an erroneously issued building permit that violated controlling height restrictions, notwithstanding the developer’s good-faith reliance and substantial construction, and it reserved constitutional claims pending completion of the variance process.


Parkview Assocs. v. City of New York, 71 N.Y.2d 274 (N.Y. 1988)