Article Title: Utah Zoning Law: Enforcement
| Publication year | 2001 |
| Pages | 06-9 |
06-9 (2001). Article Title: Utah Zoning Law: Enforcement
June, 2001
Article Title: Utah Zoning Law: Enforcement
Author: Richard S. Dalebout
Contact Information
Article Type
Article
Article
Editor's Note:This article is the
second in a series of three on Utah zoning law. The
first article, entitled Utah Zoning Law: The Zoning
Ordinance, appeared in the April issue, and the third
entitled Utah Zoning Law: Appeals, will appear in
the August/September issue.
I.Enforcement Generally(fn1)
The Municipal Land Use Development and Management Act and the
County Land Use Development and Management Act permit local
zoning ordinances in Utah to be enforced by criminal and
civil actions
A. Criminal. A governing body may
provide in its zoning ordinance for criminal prosecutions to
enforce zoning regulations. Violations may be punished as a
Class C misdemeanor. (The penalty associated with a Class C
misdemeanor is a term not exceeding ninety days and a fine
not exceeding $1,000.)
B. Civil. Cities, counties and
private parties may enforce zoning ordinances by civil
actions. Specifically, the enabling acts provide that:
"a [city or county] or any owner of real estate within
the [municipality/county] . . . may, in addition to other
remedies provided by law, institute . . . injunctions,
mandamus, abatement, or any other appropriate actions . . .
[or] proceedings to prevent, enjoin, abate, or remove the
unlawful building, use, or act."
II. Civil Actions by Government
A. Injunctions. Historically, local
governments have been successful in persuading the courts to
issue injunctions to prevent a variety of zoning ordinance
violations including, as examples, the establishment of a
funeral home in a residential district, the sale of
unsubdivided land for nonagricultural purposes or a
commercial use in an agricultural district. On the other
hand, these actions are not a slam dunk and when the facts or
the law are against the government, the appellate courts have
not been reluctant to rule in favor of land owners.(fn2)
In Utah County v. Baxter,(fn3) the Utah Supreme
Court explained the policy that allows a local government to
obtain an injunction to prohibit violation of its zoning
laws:
Generally, injunctive relief is available only when
intervention of a court of equity is essential to protect
against "irreparable injury;" hence, where the
remedy at law is adequate, an injunction will not lie. Under
our zoning statute, however, injunctive relief is available
as an alternative to criminal prosecution. This is based on
the assumption that zoning offenses are inherently different
from other violations of law, and that enforcement officers
should be empowered to seek civil redress rather than to
proceed in every case by criminal prosecution.(fn4)
In Baxter, the court quoted City of New Orleans v.
Liberty Shop(fn5) to explain the public interests that
an injunction is intended to protect:
An injunction should not be issued to prevent the commission
of a crime, if the only reason for preventing it is that it
is a crime. But, if the wrong complained of is injurious to
property interests or civil rights, or if it is a public
nuisance, either in the opinion of the court or in virtue of
a statute or an ordinance making it a nuisance, the fact that
it is also a violation of a criminal statute or ordinance
does not take away the authority of a court of civil
jurisdiction to prevent the injury or abate the
nuisance.(fn6)
B. Presumption of Validity.
Administrative actions granting or denying permission to
engage in a land use are presumed to be valid. In Cottonwood
Heights Citizens Ass'n v. Board of Commissioners of Salt
Lake County,(fn7) a county commission authorized construction
of an apartment complex after having denied that permission
to a previous owner. Sustaining the action of the county
commission, the Utah Supreme Court stated:
Due to the complexity of factors involved in the matter of
zoning, as in other fields where courts review the actions of
administrative bodies, it should be assumed that those
charged with that responsibility (the Commission) have
specialized knowledge in that field. Accordingly, they should
be allowed a comparatively wide latitude of discretion; and
their actions endowed with a presumption of correctness and
validity which the courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial