WPC8 w4Mr?:}Xfsoot(X0}Q4bUs&-dܕkƎ+"yh ԤFBsl+$4zSA xk qbR8r!'6̀U[Wx,wkJ}̿鸷;a!r&dY=L 0J*]Ixׂ`≈;P8W !_H0C8K`fr2[fh͢yvXlxOPH΄"H-."PWU0ļ1(([S(vAh[nXJ iyZZF|È=D-@ }Aٚ*_iqc!yyh&E:ή\:JSݻbdjcæPcpbO5ci:L0M:xr-KguN2zيWW`*id%0i-0b %\^ b 0nU%NwD4H\ zk m  0D    n Y4 N#EX 0UZ 0 0 0W 0 0 0 0/ 0 0w 0< 0  0 0m 0 0 0P 0 0r 04! 0" 0" 0\#b$ 0$ 0$ 0>% 0% 0<Z&U >&&'''w)&*u,-- 0-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3 03333 B44 04 D5}5 D-5 0K55 AS*6}6 0C7 0D7 A+8\1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularփF1:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 O R $      2    _ChattanoogaCityOrdinance603(11)provides,inrelevantpart,thatthefollowing principalusesandstructures  maybepermittedinanyC2ConvenienceCommercialZone: t   8 ` Providedthatnotmorethanfive(5)personsareemployedtherein,thefollowing L usesmaybepermitted:` x` x 8   ` Plumbingshops   8   ` ElectricalshopsH    8   ` Radioand_TVshops_ \   8   ` Appliancerepairshops    8   ` Smallprintshops     8   ` PhotocopyingservicesX     8   ` Similarworkshoptypeuses l    (Emphasisadded).\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK4,,,,0*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  - -(// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   <:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman R $      3    _ChattanoogaCityOrdinance1000providestherequirementsregardingamanufacturingzone.  R $      5    _ThebusinesslicenseinspectorfromtheTreasurersofficetestifiedthattheofficedidnothaverecordsof  licensesobtainedpriorto1983;consequently,theprecisedateonwhichCSCobtaineditsbusinesslicenseisunclear. t Thisfactisnotmaterialtoourdecision. R $      1    _Thistractisnotmunicipallynumbered.  R $      4    _AlthoughStilestestifiedthathisbusinessexpandedsoastorequiremoreemployees,itisunclear,basedon  therecordbeforeus,howmuchofthisexpandedworkforceactuallyworkedattheProperty.Itwasnotuntilacouple t ofyearspriortoclosinghisbusinessthatStilesmovedallofhisoperationtoTractOne. k R $      6    _ThisappealwasoriginallyfiledintheCourtofCriminalAppeals.However,uponmotionbytheCity,the  CourtofCriminalAppealsorderedthatthematterbetransferredtothiscourtpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.17.  R $      7    _Infurthersupportofhisargument,_Robards_ԀproffersthattheprimaryissueiswhetherthechangefromCSC  toatruckingoperationterminateshisrighttoanonconforminguseoftheProperty._Robards_Ԁcontendsthisquestionis t answeredbyaprovisionoftheCityzoningcode,whichprovidesthat 8   8 ` [a]nonconformingusemaybechangedtoauseofthesameclassification  accordingtotheprovisionsofthisOrdinance.Whenazoneshallhereafterbe  changed,anythenexistingnonconforminguseinsuchchangedzonemaybe H  continuedorchangedtoauseofasimilarclassification;providedallother  \ regulationsgoverningthenewusearecompliedwith. ` x` x ChattanoogaZoningOrdinance,Art.VII,102.However,thesameprovisiongoesontoprovidethat X   8  8`   [_w]henever_Ԁanonconforminguseofabuildinghasbeendiscontinuedorchanged  0  toaconforminguse,suchuseshallnothereafterbechangedtoanonconforming   use.(|3$ !.8]dd8     (|G2 $ !.8]dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8]dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8]dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8]dd8     _  ]8XXdd8  @ Ct]INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#]Ct #Ԉ &   May13,2004Session L XX] #]XX#@A A CITYOFCHATTANOOGAv.MARKT._ROBARDS_XX]  J @  AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforHamiltonCounty  J @ Nos.4022,4023StephenM._Bevil_,Judge  6 @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @ No.E200301340_COA_ԄR3CVFILEDOCTOBER28,_2004_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<|` A }   MarkT._Robards_,ownerof_Robards_ԀExpress,atruckingcompany,seeksreversalofthetrialcourts x  judgmentfindingthatheviolatedthezoningordinanceoftheCityofChattanoogabyoperatinga d truckingcompanyonhisproperty.Thetrialcourtdeterminedthat_Robards_businessisa P manufacturingbusiness,anonconforminguseinacommercialzone._Robards_Ԁproffersthathisnon < conformingusewas_grandfathered_Ԁinbyvirtueofthefactthatthetwoprevioususersoftheproperty (x useditforsimilarpurposes.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. d    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourt < Affirmed;CaseRemanded.  ( l#]X#XX.]CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,_P.J._,  andH.David_Cate_,_Sp.J._,joined.  Howard_Barnwell_,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,MarkT._Robards_. t KennethO.Fritz,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellee,CityofChattanooga. L     OPINION #]XX: #XX] $"t!  #]XX #XX]@)I. #L#   Thiscaseinvolvestwoadjacentparcelsofproperty!onelocatedat2201HamillRoad %$!% ( TractOne),andthesecondlocatedonCrescentDrive( TractTwo).9  #  1      ׀In1972,achili &"& manufacturingcompany,whichwasawholesaledistributorforKrystalRestaurants,purchasedTract '"' Oneforthepurposeofconstructingamanufacturingfacility.Whenthefacilitywasbuilt,TractOne (#( andtheabuttingTractTwowerelocatedinHamiltonCounty,butoutsidethecitylimitsof )$)  Chattanooga.In1974,theCityannexedbothtracts.ItplacedTractOneina convenience p*%* _commercialzone  #  2      ׀( C2);TractTwowaszonedfortwodifferenttypesofbusinesses!one   portionofthetractwaszonedasaC2zone,andtheotherportionwaszonedasan officezone(   O1).UndertheChattanoogazoningordinance,achilimanufacturingfacilitycouldonlybe  operatedina manufacturingzone5H   #  3      ׀( M1).However,sincethechilimanufacturingfacilitywas t inoperationpriortotheCitysannexation,itcouldcontinuetooperateassuchasanonconforming ` grandfatheredM1useinaC2zone. L  Ѐ  TractOnewascontinuouslyusedformanufacturinguntilitwaspurchasedbyJ.B.Stilesin $ t December,1989.Stilespurchasedbothparcelsofproperty(collectively theProperty),buthe  ` limitedhisuseofTractTwotothatofingressandegresstotheProperty.Stilesownedasheetmetal  L  manufacturingcompanycalledCommercialServiceCompany,Inc.( CSC).Whenhepurchased  8  theProperty,hemovedhismanufacturingoperationtoTractOne.AtthetimeCSCwasfounded, $  itemployedfewerthanfiveemployees.However,by1975,thecompanyhadexpandedand,   dependinguponthequantumofitsbusinessatanygiventime,employedbetween12to30people.:   #  4      ׀     Stilesobtainedabusinesslicensesometimepriorto1983.6  #  5      ׀However,theCityTreasurers p office,whichkeepstrackofbusinesslicenses,sentCSCadelinquencynoticein1999forfailureto \ renewitslicense.Atthatpointintime,CSCinformedtheTreasurersofficethatithadclosedits H businessinJune,1997.Stilestestifiedthatin1998,hewas phasingouthisoperationssuchthat 4 onlyformeremployeeswereoperatingoutoftheshop;duringthisperiod,fewerthanfiveemployees  p wereactuallyworkingforCSC.By1999,CSChaddiscontinuedalloperations.Atsomepointin  \ time,StilesleasedaportionofTractOnetoRobards.However,duringthisleaseperiod,Robards  didnothaveanylargetrucksonthePropertysimilartothosethattheCityallegesareillegallyonthe  Propertytoday.Afterleasingthepropertyforaperiodoftime,RobardspurchasedthePropertyfrom  StilesinJuly,2002. t   FollowingRobardspurchaseoftheProperty,theCityzoningdepartmentreceiveda L  complaintthatworkwasbeingconductedonthePropertywithoutapermit.RonEsdaile,aCity 8  zoninginspector,visitedtheProperty,issuedastopworknotice,andadvisedRobardsthathewas $ t notpermittedtooperateatruckingcompany,anM1typebusiness,onTractOne,whichwaszoned  ` forC2use.Atthattime,EsdailenoticedthattrucksandtrailerswereparkedonboththeO1and  L  C2portionsofTractTwo,andthatthebuildingoutofwhichRobardsoperatedwassituatedon  8  TractOne. $  Ѐ     AsaresultofEsdailesobservations,theCityissuedtwocitationschargingRobardswith   violatingtheCityszoningordinance.OnecitationwasforviolatingtheC2zoneonTractOneby   operatingatruckingcompany,anonconforminguseonaC2zone;thesecondcitationwasfor   parkingtrailersonTractTwo,contrarytotheprovisionsoftheC2andO1zoningregulations.The p CityMunicipalCourtfoundthatRobardsviolatedtheordinancesandassessedafineoffiftydollars \ pluscostsoneachcitation.Robardsappealedtothetrialcourt.Followingadenovohearing,the H trialcourtfoundthatRobardsviolatedtheCityszoningordinance.Italsoimposedafineoffifty 4 dollarspluscourtcostsforeachcitation.Robardsappeals.;  #  6        p @)II. H   Inanonjurycase,ourreviewisdenovoupontherecordbeforeus,accompaniedbya   presumptionofcorrectness,unlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsof   fact.Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).  However,weaccordnosuchdeferencetothetrialcourtsconclusions  oflaw. Genzevoortv.Russell ,949S.W.2d293,296(Tenn.1997).4XXXX    @vv(III. l   Robardscontendsonappealthatthetrialcourterredinfindinghimguiltyofthezoning D! violationsandthathisconvictionsshouldbereversed.Robardsargumentturnsontheapplicability 0"  ofthe grandfatherprovision,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.137208(1999).Hecontendsthat #l! thestatutepermitshimtocontinuehisnonconforminguse.Thegrandfatherstatuteprovides,in $X" relevantpart,asfollows: $D #   8 ` Intheeventthatazoningchangeoccursinanylandareawheresuch &"% landareawasnotpreviouslycoveredbyanyzoningrestrictionsof '#& anygovernmentalagencyofthisstateoritspoliticalsubdivisions,or (#' wheresuchlandareaiscoveredbyzoningrestrictionsofa  governmentalagencyofthisstateoritspoliticalsubdivisions,and  suchzoningrestrictionsdifferfromzoningrestrictionsimposedafter  thezoningchange,thenanyindustrial,commercialorbusiness t establishmentinoperation,permittedtooperateunderzoning ` regulationsorexceptionstheretopriortothezoningchangeshallbe L  allowedtocontinueinoperationandbepermitted;provided,thatno 8  changeintheuseoflandisundertakenbysuchindustryorbusiness.$ t` x` x Tenn.CodeAnn.137208(b).#XXX4Xk$#4XXXXInseekingtoinvoketheprotectionofthisstatute,Robardsproffers  L  (1)thatsinceCSChadoverfiveemployees,itoperatedasanM1entityratherthanaC2entitysuch  8  thatCSCsnonconformingusewasgrandfatheredinasanM1entity,and(2)sinceCSCoperated $  asanM1entity,andtherewasnolapseintimebetweentheterminationofCSCsoperationsand   thecommencementofRobardsoperations,itwasproperforRobardstooperatehistrucking   companyonthePropertyasagrandfatherednonconforminguse.<  #  7      ׀Asaconsequence,hearguesthat   heis permittedtooperateunderzoningregulations...priortothezoningchange. Id.      TheCityrespondsbyarguingthattheextenttowhichCSCsuseofthePropertywasnon \ conformingisirrelevantinlightofthefactthatmorethan100dayselapsedbetweenthetimeCSC H usedthePropertyandthetimeRobardscommencedusingitintheoperationofhistruckingbusiness, 4 therebyterminatingthegrandfatherexemption,evenassumingCSCusedthePropertyforanM1  p use.WithrespecttoTractTwo,theCityproffersthatRobardsusedTractTwoincommercialways  \ notpreviouslyemployedbypreviousowners.TheCityarguesthatazoningordinancemayprevent H alandownerfromexpandinghisnonconformingusetonewland.W#XXX4X+#4XXXXemustthereforedetermine(1) 4 ifCSCoperatedasanM1orC2entity,and(2)whether100daysormoreelapsedbetweenthetime   whenCSCceasedoperationsandthepointintimewhenRobardscommencedhisM1useonthe   Property.       `     h       Ї  @ll)IV.      Agrandfatherclausehasbeendefinedas anexceptiontoarestrictionthatallowsallthose  alreadydoingsomethingtocontinuedoingit,eveniftheywouldbestoppedbythenewrestriction. t  OutdoorWestofTennessee,Inc.v.CityofJohnsonCity ,39S.W.3d131,135(Tenn.Ct.App. ` 2000)(quoting BlacksLawDictionary 629(5thed.1979)).Therefore,Tenn.CodeAnn.137 L  208wascreatedtoalleviateconfusionthatwouldinevitablyariseaslocalgovernments,intheir 8  attemptstopromulgateandinstituteazoningscheme,wouldtrytoforceprivatepropertyownersto $ t ceaseoperationsthatwerepreviouslylegalbutthatwouldnotconformtothenewzoningscheme.  `  SeeLaffertyv.CityofWinchester ,46S.W.3d752,758(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).  L    Intheinstantcase,itisundisputedthatthegrandfatherstatutepermittedthechili $  manufacturertocontinuetooperateasanM1zoneentitydespitethefactTractOnewaszonedas   aC2zoneafterannexation.However,Robardsseekstoextendthebenefitofthegrandfatherstatute   sothathe,too,mayoperateasifTractOnewassituatedinanM1zone.Thepartyseekingto   invokethisexceptionbearstheburdenofprovingthatitsuseofthepropertyisa preexistingnon   conformingusewhichqualifiesforprotection, OutdoorW. ,39S.W.3dat135(citing Lamar p Adver.ofTenn.,Inc.v.CityofKnoxville ,905S.W.2d175,176(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)),andthe \ grandfatherstatute mustbeconstruedstrictlyagainstthepartywhoseekstocomewithinthe H exception. Teaguev.CampbellCounty ,920S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). 4 Ѐ#XXX4X1#4XXXXԀ  p  XTomakeathresholdshowingunderTenn.CodeAnn.137208(b),Robardsmust  \ demonstrate(1)thatachangeinzoninghasoccurredeitherbyvirtueofacitysadoptionofzoning H wherenoneexistedpreviously,asintheinstantcase,orbyanalterationinexistingrestrictions,and 4 (2)thattheusetowhichheusedthePropertywaspermittedpriortothezoningchange. See   OutdoorWest ,39S.W.3dat135(citing Rivesv.CityofClarksville ,618S.W.2d502,505(Tenn.   Ct.App.1981)).Itisclearthatachangeinzoningoccurredin1974whentheCityannexedthe  Property.ItisalsoapparentthatthemannerinwhichRobardsusedtheProperty,asanM1entity,  wasacceptablepriortotheimplementationoftheCityszoningordinancein1974whentheCity  annexedtheProperty.However,theissueremainsofwhetherCSCcontinuedtousetheProperty l asanM1entityand,ifso,whethertherewasanylapsebetweenCSCsandRobardsnon X  conforminguseofthelandthatwouldrenderthegrandfatherstatuteinapplicable. D!  0"  WithrespecttowhetherCSCwasoperatingasaC2oranM1entity,thetrialcourt #l! determinedthat#XXX4XA<#ԀsinceCSCsoperationsconstituteda similarworkshoptypeascontemplatedby $X" theCityzoningordinancedefiningtheC2zone,theuseofthePropertyduringthetenureofCSC $D # fellwithintheambitofaC2entity,whichconstitutedaconforminguseofthePropertysolongas %0!$ nomorethanfiveemployeeswereworkingatCSC.Sincethecourtfoundthat4XXXXwhenStiles &"% purchasedthePropertyandcommencedoperations,hehadlessthanfiveemployees,Stilesuseof '#& TractOnefellundertheC2zoneclassification.#XXX4XC#4XXXXThetrialcourtsjudgmentwaspredicatedprimarily (#' onitsfindingthattheonlyentitytobegrandfatheredinasamanufacturingentitywasthechili )$( manufacturer;onceCSCcommencedoperations,itwasincompliancewiththeC2zoningand, |*%) consequently,thegrandfatheringprotectionceasedtoapply.Wefindthattheevidenceprofferedat h+&* thehearingdoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsfindings.Robardsraisestheissuethatthe  trialcourtmisinterpretedStilestestimonybecausealthoughCSC,atitsinception,mayhavehad  onlyafewemployees,bythetimeitmovedtotheProperty,thecompanyhadexpandedsoits  workforceexceededfiveemployees,therebybringingitwithintheambitofanM1zone.Itis t possiblethatmorethanfiveemployeeswereworkingattheTractOnefacilityduringthetimein ` whichCSCwasoperating.However,therewasatleastonepointintherelevanttimeframewhen L  CSChadfewerthanfiveemployees!whenitwas phasingoutoperations.Weagreewiththetrial 8  courtsobservationthatatruckingcompanyandasheetmetalmanufacturingfacility,which $ t predominantlyprovidesproductsforheatingandairconditioningpurposes,aredrasticallydifferent  ` entities,thelatterbeingofthetypecontemplatedbytheC2zoningprovision.#XXX4XE#4XXXX  L    8  AssumingarguendothatCSCsuseofthepropertybroughtitwithintheambitofanM1 $  entity,thisdoesnothelpRobards.Thisisbecauseatleast100dayslapsedbetweenthetermination   ofCSCsnonconforminguseandRobardsnonconforminguse.#XXX4XpK#4XXXXTheCityszoningordinance   provides,inrelevantpart,asfollows:      8 ` Thelawfuluseofabuildingexistingatthetimeofthepassageofthe p ChattanoogaZoningOrdinanceoranyamendmentthereto8shallnot \ beaffectedbytheOrdinance,althoughsuchusedoesnotconformto H theprovisionsoftheOrdinanceandsuchusemaybeextended 4 throughoutanysuchbuilding,providedthatnostructuralalterations,  p exceptthoserequiredbylaworotherCityordinance,ororderedby  \ anauthorizedofficertosecurethesafetyofthebuilding,aremade H therein,butnosuchuseshallbeextendedtooccupyanylandoutside 4 suchbuildings. h    ` x` x    8 ` Ifsuchnonconformingbuildingisremovedorthenonconforming  useofsuchbuildingisdiscontinuedfor100consecutivedays  regardlessoftheintentoftheowneroroccupantofsuchbuildingto  continueordiscontinuesuchuse,everyfutureuseofsuchpremises l shallbeinconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheOrdinance.X ` x` x  D!  XChattanoogaZoningOrdinance,ArticleVII,100(emphasisadded).#XXX4XM#4XXXXԀ 0"    Inthecaseatbar,testimonyreflectedthatCSCcommenceditsoperationassoonasthechili $X" manufacturingcompanyceasedtooperateontheProperty.Ifthisis,infact,trueandifCSCwas $D # operatingasanM1entity,thePropertywouldstillbegrandfatheredintothecurrentzoningscheme %0!$ asanM1entity.However,testimonyrelativetoCSCsdiscontinuanceofitsbusinessactivityon &"% thePropertyrevealedthefollowing:thatCSCreportedtotheCitystreasurerofficethatitclosedin '#& 1997;thatCSCsbusinesslicenseexpiredinSeptember,1998;thatin1998,Stileswas phasingout (#' operationsonthePropertysuchthatCSCwasnolongeroperatingbutthatsomeofhisformer )$(  employeeswereoperatingoutoftheshop;thatby1999,CSChadshutdownalloperations;andthat |*%) whenRobardsapproachedStilesaboutpurchasingthePropertyin2001,CSCnolongerconducted  anybusinessontheProperty,asStileshadleasedallofTractOnetoRobardsbythistime.     #XXX4X2S#ԀRobardssuggeststhattherewasanoverlapinthetimethatRobardswasleasingtheProperty t andwhenStileswasphasingoutoperationsatCSC.However,wedonotfindthattheevidence ` preponderatesagainstthetrialcourtsfindingsonthispoint.AtthetimethatCSCwas phasingout L  itsoperations,StilesleasedofficespacetoRobards.Yet,evenduringtheleasingperiod,itdoesnot 8  appearfromtherecordbeforeusthatRobardswasusingtheleasedspaceinthemannerinwhichhe $ t ispresentlyemployingtheProperty.StilestestifiedthatRobardsleasedofficespacefromhimto  ` managehistruckingcompany;duringthattimeframe,Robardsdidnotbringlargetrucksontothe  L  PropertyofthetypethatwerepresentwhenEsdailevisitedthesite.Consequently,eveniftherewas  8  anoverlapintheCSCsandRobardsoperations,itdoesnotappearthatRobardsoperationsonthe $  Propertyatthattimewere,infact,ofanM1nature.     Robardsproffersthat [a]nexistingnonconforminguseisavestedpropertyrightthata   zoningordinancemaynotabrogateexceptunderlimitedcircumstances.Insupportofthis   contention,hecitesanumberofcasesfromotherjurisdictionstostandforthepropositionthat p merelychanginglegalownershiporthenameoftheoperationisnotsuchacircumstance, seeBudget \ InnofDaphne,Inc.v.CityofDaphne ,789So.2d154,160(Ala.2000),orthatsellingthelanddoes H notterminatethenonconformingusewheretheuse runswiththeland, seeTownofLyonsv. 4 Bashor ,867P.2d159,160(Colo.App.1993).However,thesecasescitedareinappositetothe  p matterbeforeus.ThetrialcourtsjudgmentthatRobardsviolatedtheCityszoningordinancedid  \ nothingeonthechangeinownershiporthesellingoftheland.Infact,itseemstousthatifCSC H had,infact,operatedasanM1zoneentity,andtherehadbeennolapseintimebetweenCSCs 4 cessationofoperationsandRobardscommencinghistruckingoperation,Robardsmayhave   continuedthenonconforminguseoftheProperty.Itistruethatininterpretingazoningordinance,   acourtmuststrictlyconstruetherelevantordinanceinfavorofthepropertyowner. Bolesv.City  ofChattanooga ,892S.W.2d416,420(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)(citing Statev.CityofOakHill ,321  S.W.2d557,559(Tenn.1959)).However,itisalsotruethatthegrandfatherprovisioncodifiedin  Tenn.CodeAnn.137208(b)mustbeconstruedstrictlyagainstthepartyseekingtoinvokeit.See l  Teague ,920S.W.2dat221. X  @)V. 0"    Wealsofindthattheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthetrialcourtsjudgmentthat $X" parkingtrailersonTractTwoviolatedtheCityzoningordinance.Thegrandfatherstatuteis $D # inapplicabletoTractTwobecauseitwasnotbeingusedbythechilimanufacturingcompanywhen %0!$ TractOnewasannexed.Therecordbelowevidencesthatupuntilthetimethatbothtractswere &"% purchasedbyRobards,TractTwowasnotevenusedforcommercialpurposes.Wefindthat '#& RobardspresentuseofTractTwoisinviolationoftheCityszoningordinance,asthattractis (#' classifiedasbothaC2andO1zone.ThetrucksandtrailersparkedonTractTwoareancillaryto )$( thetruckingoperation,anM1entity,whichisanillegalnonconforminguseundertheCitys |*%) zoningordinance.@* h+&* @ll)VI.    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtfor  enforcementofthetrialcourtsjudgmentandforcollectionofcostsassessedbelow,allpursuantto t applicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant,MarkT.Robards.󀀀 ` @*   `     h     _______________________________  `    `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE