uses from changes made in municipal zoning ordinances. It does not protect those uses from changes made in state regulatory statutes. Thus, we agree with the commentators who noted: [T]he protection afforded to pre-existing nonconforming uses by 40:55D-68 only protects such a use from prohibition pursuant to the zoning ordinance. The fact that a use is deemed to be permitted as a pre-existing nonconforming use pursuant to 40:55D-68 does not give that use immunity from the requirements imposed by other state laws and regulations that preempt the MLUL. [William M. Cox & Donald M. Ross, New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration § 11-1.2, at 236 (2000).] See also Mt. Bethel Humus Co. v. New Jersey Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, 273 N.J.Super. 421, 427-28, 642 A.2d 415 (App.Div.1994) (<HOLDING>); Uncle v. New Jersey Pinelands Comm’n, 275
holding that the ordinary concept of use as applied in determining the existence of a nonconforming use must yield to the realities of the business in question and the nature of its operations holding written judgment must conform to oral pronouncement holding that deprivation of property must conform to due process principles holding that preexisting nonconforming use must conform with requirements of subsequentlyenacted freshwater wetlands protection act holding that pinelands commission regulation adopted pursuant to pinelands protection act act trumped mluls preexisting nonconforming use protection because act expressly provided that its implement ing regulations superseded mlul when there was a conflict