Today the Appeals Court decided Gund v. Planning Board of Cambridge.  That case concerns the former location of the Middlesex Superior Court, an asbestos-filled, anomalous sky-scraper near Lechmere in Cambridge.  The building, which does not comply with zoning, has been sold to a developer.  At issue was whether the court house is a preexisting, nonconforming

In 2007, when the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decided Rourke v. Rothman (pdf), it seemed clear that the court was endorsing the principle that a local bylaw exemption from the effects of the common law zoning merger doctrine could itself give rise to grandfathering protection under M.G.L. c. 40A, sec. 6 (pdf) (Section 6).  A recent Appeals Court decision, Kimmett v. Town of Tolland

In its recent decision in Johnson v. Board of Appeals of Andover (pdf), the Appeals Court affirmed a Land Court ruling that a 1971 eminent domain taking of part of a lot destroyed the lot’s grandfather protection under M.G.L. c. 40A, § 6 (pdf) (Section 6).  The court noted that, when this occurs, the owner is entitled to seek compensation for any diminution in value