## Facts

- The Village of Valatie enacted Chapter 85 in 1968, prohibiting mobile homes outside mobile-home parks but allowing certain existing units to continue as lawful nonconforming uses.
- Chapter 85 provided that an otherwise qualifying nonconforming mobile home could remain only until either the ownership of the land or the ownership of the mobile home changed.
- The Village asserted that six mobile homes, including one owned by Smith’s father, fell within the grandfathered class when the ordinance was enacted.
- In 1989, Smith acquired her father’s mobile home and the land by inheritance.
- The Village sought to enforce Chapter 85 and require removal of the mobile home, contending the inheritance transfer terminated the nonconforming use.
- The trial court concluded the nonconforming-use right ran with the land and held the termination-on-transfer provision unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether a local ordinance that ends a nonconforming mobile-home use upon transfer of ownership of the land or mobile home is facially unconstitutional as an unreasonable amortization measure and an invalid exercise of the police power.
2. Whether tying termination of a nonconforming use to an objective ownership-transfer event constitutes impermissible “personal” zoning.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals held that the ordinance was not facially unconstitutional.
- The court applied a presumption of constitutionality and placed the burden on the challenger to show facial unreasonableness beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court determined that using an ownership change as the endpoint for a nonconforming use was not per se irrational and could reasonably function as an amortization mechanism.
- The court rejected the claim that the ordinance was impermissible personal zoning, because it applied uniformly to the defined class of nonconforming mobile homes and relied on an objective trigger.
- The court modified the Appellate Division’s order by denying Smith’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The court expressly did not decide any as-applied regulatory takings claim.

## Legal Principles

- Legislative land-use enactments are presumed constitutional; a facial challenger must demonstrate unreasonableness beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Municipalities may eliminate lawful nonconforming uses through amortization if the method is reasonable in relation to the public benefit and the private loss.
- An amortization approach may use an objective event (such as transfer of ownership), rather than a fixed number of years, without being facially invalid.
- A transfer-triggered termination provision is not “personal” zoning when it operates uniformly on a defined category of properties and does not depend on individualized governmental selection.
- A ruling on facial validity does not resolve whether enforcement in a particular case constitutes a compensable regulatory taking.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Chapter 85 against a facial constitutional challenge, ruling that ending a nonconforming mobile-home use upon ownership transfer can be a reasonable amortization technique and that the challenger failed to rebut the ordinance’s presumption of validity.


Vill. of Valatie v. Smith, 83 N.Y.2d 396 (1994)