Clair Inn, zoning it as planned unit development.

a In November 2005, Waterfront Hotel Ventures LLC sold the inn to St. Clair Inn LLC allegedly tried to sell the property, but couldnat because the separation of parcel 7 was in violation of the cityas 1994 zoning ordinance.

a In December 2012, St. Clair Inn LLC its request, and quieted Waterfrontas ownership of parcel 7.

a Between the time of Kellyas order and the Court of Appeals opinion, St. Clair Inn LLC sold interest in the seventh parcel to International Border Consolidators LLC.

a On March 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals reversed Kellyas decision and gave the parcel back to Waterfront.

In Tuesdayas opinion, the Court of Appeals said the exclusion of parcel 7 does make the property unmarketable. Clair Inn LLC and Waterfront Hotel Ventures LLC.

aa There is no dispute that, before, up to, or until the conveyance, the property at issue was not in violation of the cityas zoning ordinance,a the opinion reads.

aa because there was no preexisting violation of a zoning ordinance before the conveyance and the act or matter that encumbered the title was the conveyance itself, defendant could not have breached its Covenant Deed.a

The appeals court also said the status of the property as a planned unit development was listed in the county land records before the sale.

aThus, using reasonable diligence plaintiff could have discovered the zoning restrictions on the property,a the opinion reads.

Mark Sadecki, a lawyer representing Waterfront Hotel Ventures, said neither party was aware of the zoning amendment at the time of the sale.

a(St.