Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)

Citation
Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Parent Document
Temple v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 536 A.2d 1024 (1987)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1987-12-01

Other Sections in This Document (118)

Full Text

1,171 chars
First, the 1951 Certificate of Occu-pance no where indicates that the building contained five rental units. It merely authorizes the rental of “all” units in the building. Second, Temple himself abandoned whatever possible historic right he had to operate his building as an apartment house which did not conform to R-4 zoning requirements when, in 1968, he applied for and received a Certificate of Occupancy for a two-family flat. 20 DCRR § 7104.3 (1973) (Zoning Regulations) (effective May 12, 1958) (“[w]hen an existing nonconforming use has been changed to a conforming or more restrictive use, it shall not be changed back to a nonconforming use or less restrictive use”) (emphasis in original). Furthermore, to the extent there is any truth in Temple’s assertion that he applied for a two-family Certificate of Occupancy in 1968 only because the District informed him that the 1964 Certificate of Occupancy issued to Simpson circumscribed Temple's right, Temple's own unlawful failure to secure a Certificate of *1030Occupancy for over five years after his purchase of the building resulted in the issuance of the 1964 Certificate of Occupancy in the first place.9