California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Siller v. Board of Sup'rs of City and County of San Francisco, 21 Cal.Rptr. 636 (Cal. App. 1962):
Under these circumstances, it is evident that there was no showing of the hardship required by section 114. In Minney v. City of Azusa (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d 12, 330 P.2d 255, the court commented upon the unnecessary hardship required under an ordinance authorizing zoning variances. The court stated, at pages 31-32, 330 P.2d at pages 265, 266: 'Self-induced hardship is not within the purview of the ordinance. Only that type of hardship which inheres in the particular property is recognized,--such as inability to use it for purposes of its existing zoning caused by the prevailing uses of surrounding property. * * * One who purchases property in anticipation of procuring a variance to enable him to use it for a purpose forbidden at the time
Page 640
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.