A SEATTLE MAN PURCHASED A HISTORIC FIREHOUSE AUCTION OFF AS A FUTURE? IT'S A NICE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT. Reporter: THE NEW OWNER WAS CITED FOR CODE VIOLATIONS YEARS AFTER THE PURCHASE. EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS ADVERTISED AS A UNIQUE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. THE OWNER WAS SUED FOR USING IT AS A RESIDENCE. HE IS NOW FIGHTING BACK AND TOLD AMY CLANCY ABOUT HIS A FOUR YEAR BATTLE WITH THE CITY OF SEATTLE. Reporter: THIS IS THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT GRABBED THOM KROON'S ATTENTION. IT WAS MARKETED AS A UNIQUE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING. WE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2012, AND THOUGHT WE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE PURCHASED IT FOR $712,000. Reporter: HE DID INTERIOR REMODELING, AND HIS EXTENDED FAMILY AND FRIENDS USE THE FIREHOUSE FOR HOLIDAYS, CELEBRATIONS, FUNDRAISERS, GRADUATION PARTIES, AND IS AN OFFICE. UNTIL THE NOTICE OF A VIOLATION ARRIVED IN JULY 2016. ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE, COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED , SO HOUSING AND ZONING INSPECTOR INVESTIGATED AND FOUND VIOLATIONS OF THE SEATTLE LAND USE CODE. HE WAS ORDERED TO DISCONTINUE TO USE. BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED AS A PUBLIC FACILITY, FIRE STATION. I THOUGHT IT WAS A JOKE , THAT IT IS STILL A FIRE STATION. DO I BUY A TRUCK? YOU SELL A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THEN YOU TELL ME AT THE FIRE STATION? Reporter: ACCORDING TO A CIVIL LAWSUIT FILED BY , IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAD NOTIFIED THEM THAT IT WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING.THOM KROON WAS SUED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE FOR VIOLATING CITY MUNICIPAL CODE FOR USING THE PROPERTY FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A FIRE STATION. BASE SUED US FOR $500 A DAY. WHICH EQUATED TO $400,000. Reporter: THE CITY LAWSUIT WAS DROPPED AFTER THOM KROON COUNTERSUED . AFTER THE LAWSUIT WAS FILED IT APPEARED THAT THEIR ATTENTION WAS FOCUSED ON SOLVING THE PERMIT ISSUED. Reporter: HE'S HOPING TO RECOVER THE $80,000 ESTIMATED SPENT BATTLING THE CITY. IF THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY AS A RESIDENT IN THE CANNOT BE USED AS A RESIDENCE THE BUYER COULD SEEK RECOURSE FOR DAMAGES . WE ARE JUST TRYING TO HOLD THE CITY TO THE SAME STANDARD THAT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY LIVES BY. Reporter: THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE AD WAS INTENTIONAL AND NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION. SPECTATING THE CITY OF SEATTLE KNEW THAT IT WAS BEING MARKETED AS A RESIDENCE? THE CITY HIRED A THIRD-PARTY AGENT TO SELL THE PROPERTY, THE CITY HAD SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THAT AGENT. Reporter: IS THAT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS ABASED ON ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL ENTRY ONTO THE PROPERTY. IT APPEARS THAT SOMEBODY CAME ONTO THE PROPERTY AND LOOKS THROUGH THE WINDOWS, TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS THAT THIS WAS BEING USED AS AN OFFICER RESIDENCE. IF THIS IS HOW THE CITY OF SEATTLE ENFORCES CODE BY COMING INTO PROPERTY WITH NO CONSENT WITHOUT A WARRANT THAT'S A MAJOR PROBLEM. Reporter: I ASKED THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION FOR AN ON CAMERA INTERVIEW, I ALSO ASKED THE SEATTLE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE , THOSE REQUESTS WERE DENIED. INSTEAD THEY SENT AN EMAIL SAYING THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING THE CLAIMS AND
