Board of Adjustment affirms staff denial of nonconforming short‑term rental at 2550 Spring Hill Ave

The Mobile Board of Adjustment voted June 2 to affirm the planning staff’s decision and deny an administrative appeal seeking nonconforming‑use status for a short‑term rental at 2550 Spring Hill Avenue.

The board’s action leaves the staff determination intact and preserves the city’s position that the property’s short‑term rental use does not qualify as a preexisting nonconforming use under the Mobile Unified Development Code. Board members were told the decision can be appealed to circuit court.

Why it matters: The case touches on how the city treats short‑term rental operations that began before the 2023 UDC rules for short‑term rentals, whether remittance of lodging taxes signals municipal acceptance, and how courts apply the Alabama Supreme Court’s recent Dixon v. City of Auburn decision to similar facts.

At the hearing, Jim Rosler, representing the City of Mobile’s planning and zoning department, cited the Alabama Supreme Court’s October 2023 Dixon v. City of Auburn decision and read from the court’s finding: “The city's failure to engage in any enforcement efforts against Dixon before the enactment of the short term rental ordinance does not provide a basis for stopping the city from asserting that Dixon's short term rental use of the home's basement is not a pre existing nonconforming use.” Rosler told the board he saw the Dixon ruling as controlling and urged that the facts in Mobile closely align with Auburn.

Attorneys for the property owners argued differently. Casey Pipes, counsel for the applicant, said the owners seek recognition of a lawful, longstanding accessory dwelling unit use that converted to short‑term rentals and that the staff’s decision did not explain its reasoning in the original letter of denial. Carrie Kamanos, also representing the applicant, told the board the property had been used as a two‑unit rental for many years and that the owners began remitting lodging taxes after switching to short‑term rentals, which she said “gave our clients indication that this was an acceptable use.” She argued the 2018 code allowed accessory dwelling units to be used residentially and that the 2023 UDC’s new short‑term rental rules put owners on notice only after adoption.

Board members pressed both sides on legal tests the city applies. Staff and counsel discussed the UDC’s treatment of uses not listed in the permitted‑use chart, the difference between an accessory residential use and a business, and the city’s conditional‑use permitting route for short‑term rentals. Staff emphasized that, under Mobile’s rules, where a use is not listed the city should identify the most analogous permitted use, and that prior to the UDC the analogous category would have been a bed‑and‑breakfast — a use not permitted in the subject R‑1 district.

The board also asked about enforcement and notice. City staff explained the revenue department contracted with a private service to identify short‑term rentals operating in the jurisdiction; that generated a list with “definitely more than 300” addresses and prompted letters asking operators to apply for business licenses. Staff said notices about the licensing process were sent beginning in October 2024; the code change creating the short‑term rental licensing framework posted in early 2023.

After discussion, a motion was made and seconded to deny the administrative appeal and thereby affirm the staff’s decision. The motion carried. Board members noted the applicant retains the right to seek review in circuit court.

The ruling leaves unsettled questions about owners who began short‑term rentals before the city adopted rules, including whether remittance of lodging taxes is sufficient to establish a lawful, preexisting use under Mobile law. The city and property owner each signaled readiness to pursue further legal review if either side appeals to circuit court.