Zoning — Nonconforming use — Discontinuance — Resumption — Abandonment — Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance.
1. In this zoning case in which it appeared that the property owner carried on a nonconforming use, manufacturing machine nuts and screw products upon his premises at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted and until 1942, and thereafter used the premises for storage until 1954 when he applied for a permit for a 25% extension, intending to resume the earlier use, and it appeared that the Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance provided "A nonconforming use when discontinued may be resumed as the same nonconforming use and no other", it was Held that, (1) under the language of the ordinance discontinuance of the use and the passage of time did not alone constitute an abandonment of the nonconforming use, and (2) the property owner was entitled to the permit he sought.
2. In view of the provision in the Philadelphia Zoning Ordinance that "A non-conforming use when discontinued may be resumed as the same non-conforming use and no other", discontinuance of the use for a period of time does not, in itself, constitute an abandonment of the nonconforming use.
OPINION PER CURIAM, January 6, 1958:
The order of the Court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge FLOOD of Court of Common Pleas No. 6 of the County of Philadelphia.