Which of the following is true about a change in zoning that makes a use nonconforming? Group of answer choices Such a zoning change would be illegal. The owner will be allowed to continue the use if it is not a nuisance. California courts will always award the owner monetary compensation. The owner of the property has an absolute right to expand the use.

Which of the following is true about a change in zoning that makes a use nonconforming? Group of answer choices Such a zoning change would be illegal. The owner will be allowed to continue the use if it is not a nuisance. California courts will always award the owner monetary compensation. The owner of the property has an absolute right to expand the use.

Similar questions

Frank places a sign in his front year supporting a law which would deport all non-Caucasian immigrants from the U.S. Emily places a sign in her front yard supporting a candidate in an upcoming election. Miguel places a sign in his front yard supporting a law which requires ride-sharing companies (like Lyft) to properly pay their drivers. Assuming their city adopts an ordinance which prohibits all signs being placed in any resident's front yard, who will be permitted to keep displaying their sign? Choose all of the correct answers. A. Frank B. Emily C. Miguel
Larkin and Oliver bought their first home in May 2019. Their real estate agent told them that all of the property tax would be deductible. Is this accurate? Yes. All property tax is deductible on the purchase of homes. Yes. Besides the complete property tax deduction, homeowners can also get an exclusion from capital gains (but only if they are a married couple, like Larkin and Oliver). No. The only tax benefit for homebuyers is that they are allowed to withdraw up to $10,000 from their IRA to go toward the down payment for their home. No. Homeowners can deduct a total of $10,000 between state, city, and property taxes.
Louisa, who is not a real estate license holder, owns three single-family residences, which she rents out. (She does not occupy any of the residences). Does she have to abide by the Fair Housing Act when selecting tenants? Louisa is exempt from the Fair Housing Act, although she may not use discriminatory advertising. Louisa is exempt from the Fair Housing Act under the Mrs. Murphy exemption. Louisa is not exempt from the Fair Housing Act. Louisa is not exempt under the Fair Housing Act, but she is exemptunder the Florida Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
5. A radio station plays a commercial for Beefy's restaurant. The station created the commercial by loved Beefy's. The star didn't give permission for this commercial and has never even been to Beefy A. The radio station is guilty of appropriation B. The radio station is guilty of slandering the restaurant. C. The star is guilty of negligent misrepresentation, although not intentional misrepresentation. D. The radio station is guilty of negligence Mark for review (Will be highlighted on the review page) << Previous Question Next Su
A local builder offers to place with you insurance on every house he/she builds while it is under construction. In return, he/she wants you to allow him/her 20 % discount off the premium required by insurers. How would you respond to comply with RIBO Regulations? OA) You can only allow a five percent (5%) discount because of your overhead and expenses. OB) You will pay the builder a flat $10.00 fee for each house, but it is contrary to RIBO Regulations to discount the premium. OC) You refuse to pay the builder anything, since it would contravene RIBO Regulations. OD) You offer the builder a 20% premium refund for those houses that have no claims while under construction.
The U.S Supreme Court requires that any condemned property must be put into use for the general public. True False
Seth is a delivery driver for Pizza Shack. One day while on a delivery, Seth decides to stop by his girlfriend's house on the way back to work. She lives 7 blocks out of the way, but Seth didn't think his manager would notice him being gone for a few extra minutes. While pulling into his girlfriend's driveway, Seth speeds out of control and runs into Suzy, a four year old girl playing in her yard next door. Suzy's parents sue Seth and Pizza Shack. Pizza Shack will likely be: 1) not liable if Seth's visit to his girlfriend constituted a "frolic" of his own and an abandonment of Pizza Shack's business. 2) liable because Seth was intending to serve some purpose of his employer by driving fast. 3) liable because Seth was working at the time of the incident. 4) not liable because Pizza Shack did not give Seth express consent to hit Suzy.
As a VP for a service company in the Kansas City area, we ran trucks on both the Missouri and Kansas sides of the city. Kansas has a much higher tax on fuel than Missouri, so Jim instructed our drivers to fill up on the Missouri side when it was feasible to do so. Fuel tax goes to build and repair roads and bridges. We drive on roads in both Kansas and Missouri. Was Jim being unethical because Jim instructed our drivers to save on fuel expenses at the expense of the State of Kansas and its citizens?
A woman works on an oil rig and certain comments were made to her about her butt. She complains to the foreman, which tells her to go to the site manager. Site Manager says to ignore them and to fit it. What is her legal rights, and how to handle this kind of scenario?
The Supreme Court of State G decided that the U.S. Constitution requires professors to warn students of their right to remain silent before questioning the students about cheating. This ruling directly conflicts with a decision of the Federal Court of Appeals for the circuit that includes State G. a. Must the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals withdraw its ruling? b. Must the Supreme Court of State G withdraw its ruling?
When a party to a lawsuit for breach of contract files pleadings, they must conform to which set of rules? Multiple Choice The Rules of Civil Litigation The Federal Rules of Contracts The Federal Rules of Evidence The Rules of Civil Procedure
Bobby is an investment banker in NYC. Although he currently has several criminal charges pending against him, Bobby is being sued by Alyssa in civil court for "emotional damages" due to a very public and embarrassing breakup in one of her favorite restaurants. Alyssa had already sued him once previously for this exact same issue in the exact same court of law. Alyssa's most recent lawsuit would be denied by this court of law on the grounds of what legal principle? O Dyads O Dicta O Double jeopardy O Lex Talionis O Res Judicata