The probability is exactly 0% if the city doesn't allow it. This has nothing to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment would you conclude that having houses next to other houses should be disallowed?
But the city allows it. And it has everything to do with zoning. If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines, at least, not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do.
> If it was a house next door allowing a homeless encampment the owner would be paying fines
I don't see why this is to be expected, but a business shouldn't expect to pay a fine
>not to mention he would be living in a homeless camp, which is not something most homeowners are eager to do.
Again, most business owners are not eager to do this either. You've told an anecdote that doesn't support your argument because it's not common (an understatement) for businesses to be a homeless camp, so to use that as an argument for why someone wouldn't want to live next to a business is ridiculous.
>I don't see why this is to be expected, but a business shouldn't expect to pay a fine
Understandable, you don't seem to know what zoning does so it might not be evident to you that commercial zoning is different from residential and available property uses are also different. Residential zoning restricts the occupancy and structures you can have on your property more so than commercial. That's why if you run a store in your house you will be fined unless you keep your customers and vendors under a very low limit and running a store from a commercial lot does not get you fined, for example.
