Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that Petitioner's use of her home, located in a residential zoning district, as a rental for one month or less ("short term rental") is not a residential use, but rather, is a commercial use, and should be prohibited in the residential zoning district.

Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that Petitioner did not have a vested property right in the nonconforming use of her property as a short term rental at the time the City passed a new zoning ordinance prospectively prohibiting new short term rentals in residential zoning districts, despite the City Manager's admissions that short term rentals were a legal and permitted use under the original zoning ordinance, despite the City's actions in issuing permits for short term rentals prior to the passage of the new zoning ordinance, despite the City openly allowing short term rentals, including Petitioner's, to exist in residential districts for decades prior to passing the new zoning ordinance, and despite the City's written recognition of the importance of short term rentals to the local economy and tourism at the time it passed a permitting regulatory ordinance prior to passing the new zoning ordinance.

Whether the Appellate Court erred when it included an analysis of the meaning of the terms "domicile", "residential", and "family" in its finding that Petitioner did not have a vested property interest in the use of her home as a short term rental prior to the passage of the new zoning ordinance, when such analysis was not required or warranted to determine if Petitioner's use of her property as a short term rental met the definition of "single family dwelling" under the original zoning ordinance when strictly interpreted.

Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that the City did not act arbitrarily and capriciously and did not violate Petitioner's substantive due process rights, commit a regulatory taking, and violate the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act when it retroactively destroyed Petitioner's prior lawful use of her property as a short-term rental by (a) adopting a regulatory ordinance requiring homeowners to obtain short-term rental permits; (b) imposing a moratorium on the issuance of those short-term rental permits and holding the moratorium in place for 18 months until it passed a new zoning ordinance; and (c) ending the moratorium simultaneously with amending its zoning ordinance to prohibit previously unpermitted short-term rentals in residential zoning districts.

Whether the Appellate Court erred in finding that Petitioner's use of her home as a short-term rental is not a residential use