Illinois Owners - Grandfathering


I have been looking at a park in IL located in a town where the city manager has told me he doesn’t want the park, doesn’t allow new homes to come in and has made vailed threats about being aggressive with respect to future code violations if the new owner doesn’t redevelop the property. In addition, he said its legal non-conforming but claims the city has no Certificate of Zoning on the park and ignores all emails and calls. Under IL law its my understanding that its grandfathered and I would win but is it worth fighting the city? Assuming I would win the issue regarding bringing in homes what would I do about potential code violations? He could literally send in an inspector every day and make my life hell and expensive.


Unless it’s an absolutely phenomenal deal, I’m not sure i would move forward. You may very well have every legal right to move forward, but it has to be worth it to deal with the hassle and harassment that sounds like it would come with the park and the extra legal costs that may be associated with it.


You should call Frank Bowman at the Illinois Manufactured Housing Association with this tale and for assistance.


Thanks for your help. I will let you know what happens.


What ever came to fruition? I’m dealing with the same issue. I talked to Frank from MHA a month ago, and he was more than willing to help in any way. However, my lender is looking for documentation from the city stating I can replace mobile homes. Unfortunately I’ve come up short the last few months to provide for my lender.


Is there a law on the state level that you could use to help your argument?


The link below is the only some what relevant case study I have found on nonconforming land use in Illinois… — an outline

Neither the city council nor the legislature is authorized, under
the power of the Constitution, to take away or limit the appellant’s

right to make any use of the property which was lawful at the time

it acquired it, except in such ways as may be necessary for the public

health, comfort, safety or welfare. So far as the property which the

appellant acquired relying on the validity of the ordinance, permitting

its use for schools and colleges is concerned, the amendment,

by depriving it of the right to make such use-which is the

4 See City of Chicago v. Reutler Bros. Iron Works, 398 111. 202, 75 N.E.2d 355 (1947).

Is 325 Ifl. 511, 156 N.E. 778 (1927).


destruction of the only property it acquired-is unreasonable and


I have found many case studies from other states, but not for Illinois. I am beyond frustrated. Since the park is located in a smaller community, the resources for municipal lawyers is slim.

@frankrolfe @Dave_Reynolds


Illinois Department of Public Health Regulates permits. Aside from case law, this is what I think solves the riddle … ( with reference links)

_(210 ILCS 115/9.3) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 719.3) _
_ Sec. 9.3. Each site on which a mobile home is accommodated shall have a minimum area of 2,500 square feet, provided that sites existing in parks or approved by the Department for construction prior to August 21, 1967, shall contain an area of not less than 1,000 square feet, and sites constructed between August 21, 1967 and the effective date of this amendatory Act of 1987 shall contain an area of not less than 2,100 feet. _
_ No mobile home shall be parked closer than 5 feet to the side lot lines of a park, or closer than 10 feet to a public street, alley or building. Each individual site shall abut or face on a private or public street. All streets shall have unobstructed access to a public street. There shall be an open space of at least 10 feet adjacent to the sides of every mobile home and at least 5 feet adjacent to the ends of every mobile home. _
(Source: P.A. 85-565.)