Can a drive-in restaurant operate as a standalone use under Utah zoning ordinances? Ogden City Plaza Investors v. Ogden City Board of Zoning Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed a fundamental question of zoning interpretation in Ogden City Plaza Investors v. Ogden City Board of Zoning, clarifying how municipalities should interpret ordinances listing multiple permitted uses.

Background and Facts

Ogden City Plaza Investors owned commercial property in Ogden City’s Central Business District that housed a standalone building with a drive-through window. After nearly six years of vacancy, the city notified the owner that it had lost its nonconforming use rights to the drive-through window. The dispute intensified when the city planned to construct a bike lane that would block access to the drive-through. The owner sought a formal determination that the drive-through was permitted under the zoning ordinance, but the Planning Division and Board of Zoning Adjustment disagreed.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was interpreting a zoning ordinance provision stating that “service station, drive-in restaurant, gas pumps, convenience stores” were permitted in the Central Business District. The city argued this was a “mixed-use entry” requiring a facility combining all listed characteristics. The property owner contended that each comma-separated item constituted an individual permitted use.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying correctness review to this question of law, the court applied ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. The court read the provision as “setting forth a list of discrete items demarcated by commas,” with each item qualifying as a standalone property use. The court rejected the city’s noscitur a sociis argument, explaining that this canon helps determine meaning of individual terms based on context, but does not require reading discrete listed items as a singular combined facility. The court noted that zoning ordinances should be “liberally construed in favor of the property owner” because they restrict common-law property rights.

Practice Implications

This decision provides important guidance for interpreting zoning ordinances with comma-separated lists of uses. Practitioners should argue that such lists permit individual uses unless explicit language requires combination. The court’s emphasis on liberal construction favoring property owners reinforces the principle that zoning restrictions should be narrowly interpreted. When challenging zoning determinations, practitioners should carefully examine the text of ordinances and avoid assuming that listed items must be combined absent clear language to that effect.