Cited by

RSA 676:4-a (2008); see also Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar's Head District., 101 N.H. 460, 463, 146 A.2d 257 (1958) ("zoning conditions and restrictions are designed to regulate the land itself and its use and not the person who owns or operates the premises by whom such use is to be exercised").

RSA 676:4-a (2008); see also Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463 (1958) (“zoning conditions and restrictions are designed to regulate the land itself and its use and not the person who owns or operates the premises by whom such use is to be exercised”).

Although we have expressly permitted a ZBA to define and constrain *172 nonconforming uses, see Peabody v. Town of Windham, 142 N.H. 488, 492 (1997); Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 464 (1958), such authority derives from, and is coextensive with, the authority to enact the underlying ordinance because nonconforming use is the byproduct of regulation.

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463 (1958); Wentworth Hotel, Inc., 112 N.H. at 27; see also 3 K. YOUNG, ANDERSON’S AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING § 20.63, at 636 (4th ed. 1996) (“Absent some specific provision of the enabling statutes or the ordinance empowering the board of adjustment to impose conditions, such authority may be inferred from more general

Specifically, NCES argues that the amendment is improper because it distinguishes between users of land, not uses of land, see Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463-64 (1958), and because it contravenes the general welfare of the region it affects, see Britton v. Town of Chester, 134 N.H. 434, 441 (1991).

Vlahos Realty Co., Inc. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 146 A.2d 257 (1958).

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head Dist., 101 N.H. 460, 463, 146 A.2d 257, 260 (1958).

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463, 146 A.2d 257, 260 (1958) (decided under prior law).

Moreover, using “a declaratory judgment to test the legality of a zoning restriction allegedly in excess of the jurisdictional authority of the zoning power is not without precedent in this state.” Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 465, *365 146 A.2d 257, 261 (1958); see Gutoski v. Winchester, 114 N.H. 414, 415, 322 A.2d 4, 5 (1974).

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463, 146 A.2d 257, 260 (1958).

This is not a case where a zoning board found it necessary to attach a condition to the grant of a variance “in order to observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance.” Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 463, 146 A.2d 257, 260 (1958).

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 146 *418 A.2d 257 (1958); New London v. Leskiewicz, 110 N.H. 462, 272 A.2d 856 (1970); 2 A. Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning 49-1 (1972); see Wilson v. Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 161 Conn. 19, 291 A.2d 230 (1971).

2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 35 (1962); Vlahos Realty Co., Inc. v. Little Boar’s Head Dist., 101 N.H. 460, 146 A.2d 257 (1958); Flanders Lumber & Bldg.

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar’s Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 146 A.2d 257 (1958); 101 C.J.S.

Vlahos Realty Co. v. Little Boar's Head District, 101 N.H. 460, 464, 146 A.2d 257, 261 (1958); Melody v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 158 Conn. 516, 264 A.2d 572, 574, 575 (1969); Arundel Corp. v. Board of Zoning App., 255 Md.