ABSTRACT
To demonstrate the settled nature of the issue before us we point out that the United States Supreme Court faced the same question in die first major constitutional challenge to modern zoning to come before it. We do no attempt to answer them here, beyond the observation that it seems unlikely a court would allow a municipality to repent of its sins completely at the expense of the abutting highway land owner. We fully concur in the finding of the trial court that the ordinance under review "does no. promote any of the statutory purposes relating to zoning." Here the very purpose of the ordinance was to permit the constmction of a shopping center on this one block. If its use is forbidden, that part of plaintiff's plant devoted to that work must some time be abandoned, but it is also true that this deposit was neither relied upon no. known when the tile plant and kilns were built.
