Manhattan Sepulveda, Ltd. v. City of Manhattan Beach

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 135·22 Cal. App. 4th 865·27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 565·94 Daily Journal DAR 2085·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 1994B066067California2,550 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Statement of the Case

This is an appeal taken from the superior court’s decision to deny a petition for a writ of mandate filed by a property owner. At issue is a municipal code section which permits reconstruction of a nonconforming building damaged by fire if the cost to repair does not exceed 50 percent of the building’s value prior to the fire. The municipality successfully urged that value meant the cost to replace the entire building. Our review of the record convinces us that there is no basis to sustain such an interpretation. Instead, we conclude that value should be defined as the fair market value of the structure at the time of the fire. We therefore reverse the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Manhattan Sepulveda, Ltd. (appellant), owned a two-story commercial building in Manhattan Beach. The building provided office and service business space. The tenants included a tailor, tanning salon, hair salon, and travel agency. In July 1990, a fire damaged a large portion of the structure. Although the building did not conform with some building requirements, its use was lawful. Appellant applied to the City of Manhattan Beach (City) for permission to…

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.