BELL, Justice.
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the residential structure the appellants desire to place on their lot (hereafter the structure) is a mobile home within the meaning of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Clayton (hereafter the zoning ordinance). The trial court concluded the structure is a mobile home, but we conclude it is not, and reverse.
The appellants own property in a single-family residential district in the City of Clayton. The zoning ordinance prohibits mobile homes in such districts. The appellants applied to the City for a building permit to put the structure on their lot, but the City denied the permit on the ground the structure is a mobile home. The appellants then filed a petition for mandamus in superior court to compel the City to issue the building permit. The appellants contended they had a right to the permit because the structure is not a mobile home and is thus not prohibited in single-family residential districts. The superior court ruled the structure is a mobile home and denied the appellants' petition for mandamus.
The zoning ordinance defines a mobile home as
[a] transportable structure, equipped or used for residential purposes, constructed to be towed
on its own chassis. . . . [Emphasis supplied.] [Art. III, § 301 (20) of the zoning ordinance.]
As "`zoning ordinance should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner,'" City of Cordele v. Hill, 250 Ga. 628 ( 300 S.E.2d 161) (1983) (quoting Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197 ( 264 S.E.2d 13) (1980)), and as the structure does not have its own chassis, we conclude the structure is not a mobile home within the meaning of the zoning ordinance.
Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.
BELL, Justice.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1991.