§ 26.9.4.4 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ZONING DECISIONS.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 26.9.4.4 Judicial Review of Zoning Decisions. Municipal and county enabling legislation do not provide procedures for appealing final zoning decisions of city councils or boards of supervisors. Review is available by a declaratory judgment action pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-1831 to 1846 or a special action directly to the superior court. Davis v. Pima Cty., 121 Ariz. 343, 345, 590 P.2d 459, 461 (App. 1978), overruled on other grounds, Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 538, 543, 720 P.2d 513, 518 (1986). See generally Superior Court Special Actions Chapter 25.

The standard of reviewing zoning decisions is very restrictive. A zoning action is a legislative rather than administrative function, and is not evaluated under judicial due process standards. Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 127 Ariz. 107, 108, 618 P.2d 601, 602 (1980). Courts will normally interfere with rezoning classifications only upon a clear abuse of discretion, an excessive use of power, error of law, lack of good faith, or an act of unreasonableness and irrationality. Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp., 27 Ariz. App. 600, 605, 557 P.2d 532, 537 (1976). As stated in Peabody v. City of Phoenix, 14 Ariz. App. 576, 580, 485 P.2d 565, 569 (1971), "[i]t is a settled rule of law in this state that a zoning ordinance is cloaked with a presumption of validity." See also Mueller v. City of Phoenix, 102 Ariz. 575, 581, 435 P.2d 472, 478 (1967); City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 18, 363 P.2d 607, 610 (1961). The burden of overcoming a presumption of validity rests squarely on the party attacking the legislative determination. Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, 229 Ariz. 75, 79, ¶ 12, 270 P.3d 902, 906 (App. 2012); Haines v. City of Phoenix, 151 Ariz. 286, 290, 727 P.2d 339, 343 (App. 1986); Dye v. City of Phoenix, 25 Ariz. App. 193, 194, 542 P.2d 31, 32 (1975); City of Phoenix v. Collins, 22 Ariz. App. 145, 147-48, 524 P.2d 1318, 1320-21 (1974). This presumption is based upon deference to legislative expertise, the legislative province, and the general conclusion that courts "are ill equipped to sit as super-zoning commissions." Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., 7 Ariz. App. 408, 411, 440 P.2d 44, 47 (1968); see also Haines, 151 Ariz. at 290, 727 P.2d at 343. In rezoning matters, when the existing and proposed zoning classifications are appropriate, the legislative body has the prerogative of choosing the applicable classification, not the owner or the courts. See...