We granted a discretionary appeal in this case to the City of Atlanta “the city” and the City Board of Zoning Adjustment “the board” to review the trial court’s order reversing the decision of the board and reinstating a building permit initially granted to Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. “Starship”, but later revoked. The trial court incorrectly held that no evidence supported the board’s finding of an intervening use that terminated the legal non-conforming use of the property at issue, and accordingly erred when it reinstated the building permit on that ground. We therefore reverse. Starship sought to operate an adult business1 on premises formerly occupied by another adult business as a nonconforming or “grandfathered” use. The city first issued and then revoked a building permit, contending that under Atlanta Code of Ordinances §16-24.005 4, the nonconforming use was superseded by a permitted use, a used furniture store, and could not be resumed. The board affirmed, and Starship appealed to the superior court, which found that the permit had been wrongfully revoked and ordered the city to reinstate it. This appeal followed.
1. The board first complains that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, weighing the evidence instead of determining whether any evidence supported the board’s decision. While it recited some of Starship’s evidence at considerable length, the trial court expressly adopted the correct standard of review, observing, “The ‘any evidence’ standard applies to this Court’s review of the administrative decision of the City Board of Adjustment.” “The sole function of the reviewing court was to determine 1 whether there was any evidence to support the findings of the board and 2 whether the board had abused its discretion. Cit.” City of Atlanta Bd. of Zoning Adjustment v. Kelly , 238 Ga. App. 799, 801 1 520 SE2d 269 1999.