If any building or structure has been erected, constructed, altered, converted or maintained, or any building, structure or land has been used, in violation of any provision of this chapter or of any bylaw, ordinance, rule or regulation made under authority conferred hereby, any official having jurisdiction, in addition to other remedies, may institute an action or proceeding to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, alteration, conversion, maintenance or use or to restrain, correct or abate such violation or to prevent the occupancy of such building, structure or land or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or about such premises. Such regulations shall be enforced by the officer or official board or authority designated therein, who shall be authorized to cause any building, structure, place or premises to be inspected and examined and to order in writing the remedying of any condition found to exist therein or thereon in violation of any provision of the regulations made under authority of the provisions of this chapter or, when the violation involves grading of land, the removal of earth or soil erosion and sediment control, to issue, in writing, a cease and desist order to be effective immediately. The owner or agent of any building or premises where a violation of any provision of such regulations has been committed or exists, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or exists, or the owner, agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the building or premises in which such violation has been committed or exists, or the agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violation exists, shall be fined not less than ten dollars or more than one hundred dollars for each day that such violation continues; but, if the offense is wilful, the person convicted thereof shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars or more than two hundred fifty dollars for each day that such violation continues, or imprisoned not more than ten days for each day such violation continues not to exceed a maximum of thirty days for such violation, or both; and the Superior Court shall have jurisdiction of all such offenses, subject to appeal as in other cases. Any person who, having been served with an order to discontinue any such violation, fails to comply with such order within ten days after such service, or having been served with a cease and desist order with respect to a violation involving grading of land, removal of earth or soil erosion and sediment control, fails to comply with such order immediately, or continues to violate any provision of the regulations made under authority of the provisions of this chapter specified in such order shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars, payable to the treasurer of the municipality. In any criminal prosecution under this section, the defendant may plead in abatement that such criminal prosecution is based on a zoning ordinance or regulation which is the subject of a civil action wherein one of the issues is the interpretation of such ordinance or regulations, and that the issues in the civil action are such that the prosecution would fail if the civil action results in an interpretation different from that claimed by the state in the criminal prosecution. If the court renders judgment for such municipality and finds that the violation was wilful, the court shall allow such municipality its costs, together with reasonable attorney's fees to be taxed by the court. The court before which such prosecution is pending may order such prosecution abated if it finds that the allegations of the plea are true.

(1949 Rev., S. 846; 1959, P.A. 28, S. 46; February, 1965, P.A. 109, S. 1; P.A. 73-434; P.A. 74-183, S. 181, 291; P.A. 76-436, S. 160, 681; P.A. 77-509, S. 7; P.A. 79-348; P.A. 87-244; 87-347; P.A. 12-80, S. 5.)

History: 1959 act changed jurisdiction of violations from local police court to circuit court; 1965 act added provisions concerning civil and criminal actions involving violation of one zoning regulation; P.A. 73-434 added provision allowing issuance of cease and desist orders for violations involving land grading or earth removal; P.A. 74-183 substituted court of common pleas for circuit court; P.A. 76-436 substituted superior court for court of common pleas, effective July 1, 1978; P.A. 77-509 made no change; P.A. 79-348 increased civil penalty for violation of order from $250 to $500 and added provision re costs and attorneys' fees; P.A. 87-244 authorized soil erosion and sediment control orders to be effective immediately; P.A. 87-347 changed amount of civil penalty from $500 to an amount not to exceed $2,500; P.A. 12-80 added provision establishing maximum term of imprisonment of 30 days for wilful offense and made technical changes.

Cited. 135 C. 423. Plea in abatement overruled where town named as plaintiff as no substantive rights affected; structural alterations on nonconforming use change building into substantially different structure adapted to an extension of the nonconforming use. 146 C. 178. Cited. 150 C. 439. When ordinance requires approval for extension of nonconforming use, extension without approval is prohibited. Id., 584. Judgment denying plaintiff injunctive relief based on unsound proposition of law set aside. 155 C. 431. Cited. 165 C. 185. Measure of damages for breach of contract and warranty deed in that house was constructed in violation of zoning regulations; ripening of use under Sec. 8-13a after breach does not affect damages. 170 C. 177. Cited. 180 C. 575; 181 C. 556; 186 C. 106; 199 C. 575; 208 C. 1; Id., 696; 221 C. 374; 225 C. 575; 230 C. 622; 232 C. 122; 239 C. 515. Although federal regulations allow a local zoning commission to consider compliance with local health regulations in evaluating recreational uses within a hydroelectric power project, federal regulations do not require that licensee obtain local zoning and building permits for development of recreational resources. 285 C. 498. Probable cause is necessary to justify search for zoning violations that target a single residence; administrative searches of residences must comply with fourth amendment of U.S. Constitution; injunction is an appropriate procedural vehicle through which a municipality may seek judicial authorization to conduct a zoning inspection. 303 C. 676.

Held to be unnecessary for zoning enforcement officer to allege and prove irreparable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy in order for injunction to issue. 1 CA 176. Cited. Id., 285; 2 CA 515; 4 CA 252. Application of prior pending action rule to bar action under section is neither equitable nor just where prior action was brought under Sec. 8-6. 9 CA 534. Cited. 10 CA 41; Id., 190; 15 CA 550; 17 CA 17; judgment reversed, see 212 C. 570; Id., 344; 19 CA 208; 28 CA 379; 41 CA 89; 46 CA 5. Imposition of fine for violation of zoning ordinance when defendant also violated State Building Code not double jeopardy since zoning ordinance and code are distinct and fines characterized as remedial; there is a legitimate remedial purpose in imposing fines for zoning violations; such fines are civil fines, not criminal penalties. 65 CA 265. Does not require court to impose fines and to award attorney's fees, despite use of word “shall”. 78 CA 818. Because the enforcement of zoning regulations is an act performed wholly for the direct benefit of the public, it is a discretionary and not ministerial act and therefore not amenable to mandamus relief. 122 CA 465.

In criminal action for alleged violation of order of zoning board of appeals, accused must be charged with violation of provision of ordinance, not merely order of board. 6 CS 375. Board's power to institute legal proceedings held to include right to engage counsel. 12 CS 192. Cited. 15 CS 485. Where two permits for “all liquor package store” were issued by liquor control commission in violation of 1,500 foot requirement of local ordinance, injunction against one permittee on action brought by building inspector refused. 16 CS 349. Appeal under Sec. 8-7 stays all proceedings in action appealed from, including criminal proceedings provided for in this section; information which didn’t specify crime or section of zoning ordinance held defective; court could not take judicial notice of ordinance or of order of building inspector which defendant was charged with violating. 23 CS 125. Allows for injunctive relief where fines provided by law would not deter violation. 29 CS 62. Cited. 34 CS 69; 39 CS 334.

School dormitory has educational purpose and is itself a school, rather than an accessory use, within zoning ordinance. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 294.