Cited by

v. Woodward, 160 N.H. 259, 263 (2010); Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468-69 (1982).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469 (1982) (“[W]here there is no substantial change in the use’s effect on the neighborhood, the landowner will be allowed to increase the volume, intensity or frequency of the non-conforming use.”); see also RSA 674:19 (2008).

The petitioner relies upon Bio Energy, 153 N.H. 145, and Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463 (1982); however, neither case supports the petitioner’s assertion that the doctrine of expansion of nonconforming uses should apply to this case.

of Adjustment, 155 N.H. 307, 310-11 (2007) (finding remand to the ZBA appropriate where the superior court “intended to vacate and remand the matter because it found the text of the [ZBA] decision unclear”), let alone the character, nature, scope or effect on the surrounding neighborhood of the purported expansion, see Wickson, 146 N.H. at 331; Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469 (1982) (“where there is no substantial change in the use’s effect on the neighborhood, the landowner will be

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469 (1982) (“[w]here there is no substantial change in the use’s effect on the neighborhood, the landowner will be allowed to increase the volume, intensity or frequency of the nonconforming use”).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469, 446 A.2d 458, 461 (1982) (permitting increase of arcade machines within existing structure); cf. Devaney v. Town of Windham, 132 N.H. 302, 305-06, 564 A.2d 454, 456 (1989) (prohibiting landowner’s addition of second story that increased *573 volume of premises and brought structure closer to property lines as

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 461 (1982).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982) (construing prior statute).

The defendants next argue that, independent of the hardship requirement, the owner of a nonconforming use has a right to “[develop the] nonconforming use in a way that results in a mere intensification of the use that reflects a natural expansion and growth of trade.” Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469, 446 A.2d 458, 461 (1982).

v. South Hampton, 114 N.H. 118, 316 A.2d 179 (1974) (brought under previous codification of RSA 677:4 as RSA 31:77); Schadlick v. Concord, 108 N.H. 319, 234 A.2d 523 (1967) (same), our case law is replete with collateral challenges raised long after the enactment of an ordinance, in the course of proceedings litigating its application to particular property, see, e.g., Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 446 A.2d 458 (1982) (town’s petition to enjoin violation); Cloutier v. Epping Water and,

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460-61 (1982).

at 577, 260 S.E.2d at 237; Powers, 363 Mass, at 655, 296 N.E.2d at 495; De Felice v. Zoning B. of Appeals of Town of East Haven, 130 Conn. 156, 163-64, 32 A.2d 635, 638-39 (1943); Town of Burlington v. Dunn, 318 Mass, at 223, 61 N.E.2d at 247; see also Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469, 446 A.2d 458, 461 (1982).

2 & 12; RSA 677:19; Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982); Colby v. Town of Rye, 122 N.H. 991, 992, 453 A.2d 1270, 1271 (1982); Metzger v. Town of Brentwood, 117 N.H. 497, 502, 374 A.2d 954, 957 (1977); State v. Paille, 90 N.H. 347, 352, 9 A.2d 663, 666 (1939).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982).

2 and 12; see Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982).

Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 468, 446 A.2d 458, 460 (1982).