State sides with landlord in property-rights conflict over Provo home

PROVO — Landlord Scott Davidson calls it a "common coincidence" that people who once lived in the 1915 house he bought in 2006 are still in the area and like to talk about their experience when he is out working in the yard.

Many of the people who walk by the house at 175 W. 200 South remember living there or in the neighborhood more than 35 years ago, Davidson said. Often, they like to share their emotional ties to the early 20th century houses and basement apartments they once rented.

Now, Davidson is relying on those "common coincidences" to help him build a case against Provo, which won't allow him to legally rent the house and basement apartment separately.

The landlord has found directories that showed tenants who rented the home or basement in 1941 and 1956, as well as evidence that a city building inspector said the kitchen was installed in 1950.

City zoning officials cite a 1974 ordinance that says an owner must prove that his or her property was legally nonconforming to continue the use. The home is in the central business district commercial zone.

But a state ombudsman says the ordinance oversteps legal boundaries to keep Davidson from renting his house as a nonconforming duplex. Such opinions are intended to avoid legal action.

The ordinance goes beyond state law, lead attorney Brent N. Bateman wrote in a non-binding advisory opinion, because it asks for more evidence than state law requires.

Davidson has appealed the city's determination before the Provo City Board of Adjustment, which will make the final decision at the city level.

The Board of Adjustment's decision could affect other property owners if the appeals board issues a general ruling, but not if it's narrow, said city attorney Robert West said.

Davidson has been fighting the city since he bought and refurbished the house and applied for a rental-dwelling business license. He also needed a determination that it was a nonconforming use so he could continue renting it as a two-family home. But city officials rejected his application, asserting the property was a single-family home and couldn't be rented to two families.

Davidson showed that the home and basement apartment were rented separately prior to 1974, when multiunit structures were legal in that area. The law changed then and required property owners to prove nonconforming use with much more evidence.