Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the property when the prohibitory ordinance was enacted. See Sico v. Indiana Township Zoning Hearing Bd., 166 Pa.Cmwlth. 321, 646 A.2d 655, 660 (1994) ("The doctrine of natural expansion ... applies only to nonconforming business uses”). See also Ryan, Pennsylvania Zoning Law, §§ 7.1.8 and 7.7.1 (recognizing that most, if not all lawfully pre-existing noncon-formaties receive some protection under Pennsylvania law and that the scope of protection is subject to obvious differences between nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures). The doctrine was never meant to allow for the expansion of nonconforming conditions, such as Baer’s accumulation of junk, oversize structures or encroachment into setbacks. See Constantino v. Forest Hills Borough, 128 Pa.Cmwlth. 407, 563 A.2d 953 (1989) . See also Chartiers Township v. W.H. Martin,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law
B. holding that setback and height requirements in zoning ordinance were not preempted by the solid waste act because they related to land use and not operation of a landfill
C. holding that a preexisting tariff did not preempt municipal ordinance requiring undergrounding of utility lines
D. holding that shrubbery exceeding the height limit imposed by subsequent ordinance not protected as a preexisting nonconformity
E. holding that a plaintiff had standing to attack an entire ordinance including portions of the ordinance not applied to the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.