NATCHEZ — The owner of a four-unit apartment house at 1116 Main St. had hoped the city would allow the house to continue to be operated as an apartment if it was sold to a new landlord.

City officials, however, said “no” after hearing concerns from neighboring residents.

Planning and Zoning Director Ricardo Giani said the house at Main Street and St. Charles Avenue had not conformed to city zoning ordinance, because it sat in a two-family residential district — meaning each land parcel should only house two families or fewer.

The ordinance had been overlooked until recently when the owner — Richard Wilbourn of Texas — started to sell the property to a new landlord who wanted to keep the house as a quadruplex apartment and was told he could not do so without being granted a special exception to continue its nonconforming use, Giani said.

“The property is currently on the market for sale and nonconforming land uses are nontransferable between owners,” Giani said.

Giani said the city planning commission denied Wilbourn’s request in July due to parking and traffic safety concerns, explaining that the parking lot beside the house could only hold three vehicles.

“If this structure was a newly proposed as a four-plex, the parking requirement would be five spaces,” Giani said, “but the board is asked to continue a nonconforming use.”

During Tuesday’s regularly scheduled meeting, Wilbourn requested an appeal of the planning commission’s decision, which the board of aldermen denied on a vote of 5-0 — with Alderwoman Sarah Carter-Smith recused from the discussion.

Grayson Lewis, an Adams County attorney representing Wilbourn, argued that the zoning law had never been discussed as ownership of the house had changed three times over the past 30 years.

“We’re not trying to change the use of the property,” Lewis said. “It has been used as a four-plex for at least 33 years. It just so happens with Mr. Wilbourn trying to sell the property an appraiser noted that it had been zoned for R-2 and it was nonconforming. That is what started the process of trying to get this nonconforming use approved — not just for the current owner but for future owners so it could be sold and continued being used in its current state.”

Wilbourn said keeping the house’s current use would allow four renters to continue their lease with a new owner, whereas any change would not be economically viable for the house’s design.

Cheryl Rinehart, a neighboring resident and member of the city planning commission, said the parking had not been as much of a concern 20 or 30 years ago as it would be today.

“If you have four renters, and let’s say each of those is a married couple — that is eight cars,” Rinehart said.

Other residents of the area argued that the issue had never been brought to any board until recently though the problem of traffic congestion persisted for the past several years and posed safety concerns.

Alderman Dan Dillard, who presented the motion to deny Wilbourn’s appeal, said granting one exception could lead to a domino effect on the rest of neighborhood — adding to any existing traffic problems.

“Just because it was nonconforming for 30 years does not mean that it should continue being that way,” Dillard said. “… It has the potential to change the rest of the neighborhood if the board took the position to allow this to happen … and there would be no end to it.”