The only relevant issue is the legal question of authority---ancillary additions to the expression of antitrust law are not ‘expansion’
Loren E. Murphy 47, Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, Federal Electric Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 398 Ill. 142, 145-146, 75 N.E.2d 359, 361-362, 1947 Ill. LEXIS 467, *6-7 (Ill. September 18, 1947), 9/18/1947, Lexis
The question is squarely presented as to whether the placing of the neon signs on the towers expanded the use to which the property had been previously devoted. The restrictive part of the ordinance which prohibits expansion refers to the nonconforming [**362] use of the property. Literally, it provides that the use may be continued but it cannot be [*146] expanded. Webster's International Unabridged Dictionary defines the word "expand," to extend, to enlarge. The application of such definition to the word "expanded" as contained in section 10 would mean that the use that was being conducted on the premises at the time of the adoption of the ordinance could not be extended or enlarged. The placing of the neon signs on the towers did not expand or enlarge the use to which the property was devoted. [***7] It may have been installed for advertising purposes, hoping that it would result in a gain of its business, but there is nothing in the record which indicates that such advertising would be followed by any expansion or enlargement of the laboratory experiments that were being conducted on the property. Zenith had the right to continue its nonconforming use and the right to advertise that use and the products it was handling, so long as it did not expand the use to which the property was devoted when the ordinance was adopted.