Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting *1024 leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the Washtenaw Circuit Court. The Court of Appeals failed to accord due weight to the findings of the Washtenaw Circuit Court, which were not clearly erroneous. See Kropf v Sterling Hts, 391 Mich 139, 163 (1974).

Further, the Court of Appeals erred in precluding relief based on the “self-imposed-hardship rule.” The self-imposed-hardship rule applies to preclude relief in taking claims asserted by a property owner who has subdivided or physically altered the land so as to render it unfit for the uses for which it is zoned, not to cases in which the legal status of the property has been altered. See, e.g., Johnson v Robinson Twp, 420 Mich 115, 117 (1984); Bierman v Taymouth Twp, 147 Mich App 499, 506 (1985). Rather, a plaintiff who purchases property with knowledge of existing zoning regulations takes the property along with the seller’s legal right to challenge those regulations. Kropf, supra, 391 Mich at 152. There is no legal precedent to extend the self-imposed-hardship rule to prevent a plaintiff who personally sought to conform the property’s zoning classification to the municipality’s master plan in the first instance from later seeking, in good faith, to rezone the property to another classification to allow a different use. Court of Appeals Nos. 278417 and 282532.