## Facts

- A fire damaged the Byrums’ residence on Sullivan’s Island in 1983; during repairs, they expanded the structure beyond fire restoration and created six separate bedrooms and baths.
- The Byrums began operating a bed-and-breakfast business from the residence and used a detached garage apartment for human habitation.
- The Town’s zoning ordinance allowed “home occupations” only if conducted entirely within the dwelling by occupants, clearly incidental and secondary to residential use, not changing the dwelling’s character, employing no nonresidents, and using no more than 25% of a structure’s floor space.
- In earlier administrative proceedings, the Town’s Board of Adjustment denied the Byrums a variance from the 25% floor-space limit, finding a B&B was not a home occupation and, in any event, exceeded the limit; that denial was ultimately reinstated on appeal.
- After the prior dispute, the Town amended its ordinance to prohibit “boarding houses” in the district.
- The Byrums continued operating the B&B and using the garage apartment; the Town filed suit seeking injunctions to stop both uses.
- The circuit court denied injunctive relief, ruled the B&B was a permissible home occupation, and held the Town was equitably estopped from enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether the Byrums’ bed-and-breakfast use qualified as a permitted “home occupation” under the zoning ordinance.
2. Whether the Town was equitably estopped from enforcing zoning restrictions against the B&B and the garage apartment.
3. Whether use of the garage apartment for human habitation violated zoning and could be enjoined.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court.
- The court held the B&B was not a permitted home occupation because it was not clearly incidental to residential use, changed the dwelling’s character, and exceeded the 25% floor-space limitation when properly calculated.
- The court held the B&B was not a lawful conforming use when initiated and therefore could not claim protected nonconforming-use status after the later “boarding house” prohibition.
- The court held equitable estoppel did not bar enforcement because there was no misleading municipal representation, no justifiable reliance, and no sufficient prejudicial change of position.
- The court held the garage apartment’s use for habitation violated applicable zoning restrictions and was likewise enjoinable; estoppel also failed as to that use.
- The case was remanded with instructions to enter an order granting injunctions against both the B&B operation and the garage apartment’s use for human habitation.

## Legal Principles

- A “home occupation” must be clearly incidental and secondary to residential use and must not alter the residential character of the dwelling; intensive lodging activity may fall outside this category.
- Express floor-space limits on home occupations (e.g., 25% of total floor space) are enforceable, and exceeding the limit renders the use non-permitted.
- A use is protected as a lawful nonconforming use after an ordinance change only if it was lawful when begun; an initially unlawful use cannot be grandfathered.
- Equitable estoppel against a municipality is disfavored and requires clear proof of misleading conduct, reasonable reliance, and substantial detriment; prior objections or enforcement efforts generally defeat reliance.
- Residential use of an accessory structure may be enjoined when not authorized by zoning and when there is no municipal conduct that would support estoppel.

## Conclusion

The court required the Town to be granted injunctive relief because the Byrums’ bed-and-breakfast and garage-apartment habitation violated zoning restrictions, and the record did not support estopping the Town from enforcing its ordinances.


Town of Sullivans Island v. Byrum, 306 S.C. 539, 413 S.E.2d 325 (Ct. App. 1992)