Facts
The appellant [X.] is the owner of a property located in the agricultural zone in Marthalen. The building consists of a residential part and an agricultural part. In 2001, [X.] submitted an application for the installation of a three-room apartment on the ground floor of the agricultural part and the residential use of two rooms on the upper floor. The competent authorities rejected the application, as the planned changes would no longer preserve the identity of the building. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zürich confirmed these decisions. [X.] appeals the decision of the Administrative Court to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal. It concludes that neither Art. 37a SPA (changes of purpose of commercially used buildings) nor Art. 24c SPA (partial modification or moderate expansion of buildings not in conformity with the zoning) allow for a permit for the construction project.According to Art. 37a SPA, changes of purpose and expansions of commercially used buildings that have become non-conforming with the zoning can only be permitted if they were lawfully constructed or modified. In the present case, however, there is a lack of commercial use within the meaning of this provision, as the agricultural part is only used as an archive for an…