Background
Timothy Deppe purchased property at 1958 Llewellyn Avenue in the Village of Swansea in 2006, and a second parcel at 2012 Llewellyn in 2020. Both parcels were zoned as “Conservation” district, which permits only specified uses including agriculture, nurseries, single-family dwellings, and recreational facilities—but not self-storage businesses. Deppe obtained permits from Swansea for various construction projects from 2006 onward, including storage buildings, though each permit explicitly required compliance with village ordinances and codes.
In March 2010, Swansea’s deputy code administrator notified Deppe that storage sheds on the 1958 Llewellyn property violated the permitted uses of the Conservation district and demanded compliance “in a timely manner.” Despite this notice and several subsequent communications from Swansea officials indicating code violations, Deppe continued to operate “Tim’s Storage” business on both properties. Deppe never filed for a zoning variance or sought alternative legal authorization for the storage use.
In June 2023, after receiving neighbor complaints, Swansea issued a corrective action order on June 9, 2023, requiring Deppe to cease the self-storage business by June 19, 2023. Deppe appealed to the Planning and Zoning Board, which affirmed. The St. Clair County Circuit Court reversed regarding 1958 Llewellyn, finding equitable estoppel applied, but affirmed the denial for 2012 Llewellyn. Swansea appealed the 1958 Llewellyn decision; Deppe cross-appealed the 2012 Llewellyn decision.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s equitable estoppel finding for 1958 Llewellyn and affirmed the denial of estoppel protection for 2012 Llewellyn. The court held that equitable estoppel cannot be invoked where a property owner knew or should have known of zoning violations and explicitly received notice from government officials. Although Illinois law permits equitable estoppel against government agencies under limited circumstances, the doctrine is “not favored” and requires showing three elements: (1) affirmative government action, (2) substantial reliance induced by that action, and (3) substantial detrimental change in position.
The court found Deppe’s reliance unreasonable as a matter of law. Although Deppe claimed he relied on statements from Swansea officials and on permit approvals, he received explicit written notice in 2010 that his storage use violated the Conservation district zoning. All permits contained language requiring his compliance with applicable codes and ordinances, and he never filed for a variance despite being advised to do so. The court noted that while parties may rely on government representations without investigation when the statements are within an official’s knowledge and appear truthful, a party cannot ignore clear warning notices and then claim justifiable reliance on contrary government statements. Deppe’s failure to research applicable law or seek proper zoning authorization after receiving violation notices rendered his reliance objectively unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- Equitable estoppel is disfavored against public bodies and requires proof that reliance was reasonable given all facts the property owner knew or could have discovered through ordinary care.
- A property owner cannot establish reasonable reliance on government statements permitting a use when he has received explicit written notice that the use violates zoning codes, even if other officials’ statements or continuing permit approvals suggested the use might be permissible.
- A party’s failure to pursue available legal remedies (such as seeking a variance) or to investigate applicable law after receiving violation notices weighs heavily against a finding that his subsequent reliance was justified.
- Permit approvals that include standard language requiring code compliance do not constitute affirmative government authorization for non-conforming uses, particularly when the permit applicant has been separately notified that his intended use violates the code.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that property owners operate at their peril when they ignore explicit zoning violation notices from municipal officials. Even in jurisdictions that recognize equitable estoppel as a defense to municipal enforcement, the doctrine offers no protection to owners who have been clearly warned of non-compliance. The ruling establishes a high bar for proving “reasonable reliance”: an owner who receives both direct warnings and implicit indicators of non-compliance cannot cherry-pick which official statements to credit and claim justified reliance on the favorable ones. This protects municipalities’ ability to enforce zoning codes consistently over time.
For property owners, the decision underscores the critical importance of obtaining express legal authorization (such as a variance or special permit) before undertaking uses not clearly permitted by zoning classification. Relying on oral statements from officials, conversational text messages about “amicable resolution,” or the fact that permits are being issued is insufficient protection against later enforcement. The case also illustrates that a municipality’s past tolerance or non-enforcement of a zoning violation does not estop it from later enforcement, at least when the owner had notice of the violation and failed to pursue proper legal remedies.