City of Norwalk v. Auction City, Inc.

Good Law
186 Cal. App. 2d 287·8 Cal. Rptr. 781
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 10, 1960Civ. 24424California1,523 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ford, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment by which it was 1 ‘permanently enjoined from the continuation of a race track” on certain property. The land was in a zone designated as M-2 under the zoning ordinance of the city.

Only two portions of section 501 of the ordinance are set forth in the complaint and admitted by the answer. One portion is:

The other portion, being subdivision 24 of subsection D of section 501, is:

Since no special use permit was obtained by the defendant, t;ke sole question presented on this appeal is whether the particular activity involved in this ease constitutes use of the property as a race track. There is no substantial factual dispute.

Before Norwalk became an incorporated city, the zoning ordinance of the county of Los Angeles governed the use of the property. Immediately upon such incorporation in August 1957, the language of such county ordinance was embodied in the new zoning ordinance of the city. Prior to August 2, 1946, the prohibition in the county ordinance was expressed as being only applicable to race tracks for motor vehicles and motorcycles. When the county ordinance was amended on that date so as to change the language of the prohibition…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.