Utah Supreme Court
363 P.2d 1113 (Utah 1961)
A property owner claiming a nonconforming use has the burden of proving that the use was established prior to the change in the zoning ordinance and has continued since then.
It would be unreasonable to conclude that a clerk or ministerial officer could bind a local government, forcing it to allow a variance of a zoning ordinance. A mistaken characterization of property does not establish zoning estoppel.