34. We reject the appellant's submission that a property owner with a multi-use building whose property is a non-conforming use can move his tenants about the building without PAC approval provided he makes no structural changes. We find that the uses can only he moved within the building by extending them in accordance with section 40(3) of the Act. In this case, the result would be that the number of non-conforming uses would be decreased from 5 to 4 or fewer. This is consistent with the goal of eliminating non-conforming uses over time and is how these sections of the Act accomplish that goal. See Rickard v. Provincial Planning Appeal Board and Saulnier,  Lawpost N.B.C. No. 4032.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.