Would you say that the allowances and limitations for non-conforming lot coverage are their own type of standard and would not be considered a non-conforming structure or a non-conforming lot?
Lot coverage is a percentage of the lot that can be covered with impervious materials and buildings
Non-conforming structures are non-conforming because of setbacks, height, bulk
Non-conforming lots are non-conforming because of frontage, area or lot width requirement
My Code Enforcement Officer adamantly feels that our current ordinance is correct that non-conforming lot coverage is part of the definition of a non-conforming structure - so basically right now, you need a Board of Appeals finding if you move around non-conforming lot coverage
I say, it's either a stand-alone situation (this is my past experience) or possibly you could see it as an element of a non-conforming lot because lot coverage is a lot standard - but not the structure -
But I'm open, really I am, to arguments otherwise, I haven't heard a convincing one yet -