## Facts

- Two properties in West Hartford were located in an R-10 single-family residential zone.
- The houses were originally used as single-family residences but, beginning in the early 1940s, were operated as rooming/boarding houses with substantial numbers of boarders.
- Under the town’s zoning regulations, rooming houses were permitted in the zone only as an accessory use requiring owner occupancy; after 1945, accessory rooming houses were further limited to three or fewer boarders.
- No owner resided at either property for a lengthy period, and the rooming-house operations exceeded the numerical limits associated with an accessory use.
- The town issued rooming-house (accessory-use) licenses for the premises for many years (approximately 1949–1967), including during the time the defendants owned the properties (purchased in 1962 and 1965).
- After 1967, the town refused to renew licenses; in 1969, the building inspector advised the defendants their operation violated zoning requirements (non-owner-occupied and more than three boarders).
- The town sued for a permanent injunction to stop the rooming-house use; the defendants asserted prior legal nonconforming use, laches, and municipal estoppel based on the town’s prior licensing and related conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants proved a protected prior legal nonconforming use, given that rooming houses were allowed only as limited accessory uses in the zone.
2. Whether laches barred the town from enforcing its zoning regulations after years of inaction and prior licensing.
3. Whether the town could be equitably estopped from enforcing zoning regulations based on a long history of licensing and other municipal conduct on which the defendants relied.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the finding that the properties had not been operated as lawful accessory rooming-house uses and therefore were not protected as prior legal nonconforming uses; alternatively, any such status was abandoned.
- The court affirmed rejection of laches because the defendants did not meet their burden to show inexcusable delay and resulting prejudice sufficient to bar enforcement.
- The court reversed the judgment insofar as it rejected municipal estoppel under an incorrect legal standard and remanded for further proceedings on estoppel.

## Legal Principles

- A claimed nonconforming use must be shown to have been lawful when established; zoning “accessory use” status depends on whether the actual use is genuinely incidental to the permitted principal use and complies with applicable conditions (including owner-occupancy and numerical limits where required).
- Laches requires both inexcusable delay and prejudice; prolonged municipal inaction does not, by itself, bar zoning enforcement when the party asserting laches fails to prove these elements.
- Municipal estoppel is available only with caution and in extraordinary situations, but it is not categorically barred in zoning enforcement matters.
- Municipal estoppel does not require proof that the municipality intended to mislead; inducement may arise from municipal conduct that in fact leads a party reasonably to believe and act to its detriment.
- Where a municipality has engaged in a long-standing pattern of unchallenged conduct (such as repeated licensing and related official actions), the trial court must determine whether reliance was reasonable and whether enforcement would be highly inequitable or oppressive.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the injunction and the rulings rejecting nonconforming-use protection and laches, but it required reconsideration of municipal estoppel under a standard that permits estoppel based on municipal conduct inducing reasonable detrimental reliance even without intentional inducement.


Town of W. Hartford v. Rechel, 190 Conn. 114, 459 A.2d 1015 (Conn. 1983)