27. Nonconforming use.
    a. "(A) nonconforming use cannot be justified merely because it might be temporary."
Penrose v. O'Hara, 92 Nev. 685, 686, 557 P.2d 276 (1976). No. 20.
    b. "A nonconforming use is a use which does not conform to the restriction governing a zoned area, but which lawfully existed at the time the ordinance went into effect."
Ferris v. City of Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 912, 915, 620 P.2d 864 (1980). No. 25.
    c. "Generally, zoning ordinances do not limit the right of a landowner to continue a nonconforming use in existence at the time of the adoption of the ordinance. Pederson v. County of Ormsby, 86 Nev. 895, 478 P.2d 152 (1907); State ex rel. Davie v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 224 P.2d 309 (1958)." at 915.
    d. "A landowner acquires no advantage from a nonconforming use where it appears that such use was unlawful at the time the zoning regulation took effect." at 915.
    e. "As we have previously held, unequivocal intent to use the property in a particular way cannot substitute for actual use at the time a zoning ordinance is enacted, so as to establish a valid nonconforming use. Pederson v. County of Ormsby, 86 Nev. 895, 478 P.2d 152 (1970)."
Board Clark Co. Comm'rs v. Excite Corp., 98 Nev. 153, 156, 643 P.2d 1209 (1982). No. 26.