10.3. STANDARDS OF REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCES.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

10.3. Standards of review of zoning ordinances.

10.3.1. Role of judiciary.

10.3.1.1. No substitution of judgment.

It is not the prerogative of courts to substitute their judgment for that of the zoning authority, but only to ensure that constitutional bounds have not been exceeded.

Mehlhorn v. Pima County, 194 Ariz. 140, 978 P.2d 117 (App. 1998)

Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Pima County, 171 Ariz. 427, 831 P.2d 426 (App. 1992)

City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 537 P.2d 934 (1975)

City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 363 P.2d 607 (1961)

10.3.1.2. Courts are ill-equipped to sit as super zoning commissions.

Mehlhorn v. Pima County, 194 Ariz. 140, 978 P.2d 117 (App. 1998)

Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Pima County, 171 Ariz. 427, 831 P.2d 426 (App. 1992)

Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, 152 Ariz. 218, 731 P.2d 113 (App. 1986)

Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 553, 720 P.2d 528 (App. 1985), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 149 Ariz. 538, 720 P.2d 513, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 986 (1986)

City of Tempe v. Rasor, 24 Ariz.App. 118, 536 P.2d 239 (1975)

City of Phoenix v. Price, 18 Ariz.App. 144, 500 P.2d 1132 (1972)

Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., 7 Ariz.App. 408, 440 P.2d 44 (1968)

10.3.1.3. Courts determine if zoning restrictions are arbitrary.

It is not the function of a court to rezone property, but to determine at what point zoning restrictions become arbitrary.

Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Pima County, 171 Ariz. 427, 831 P.2d 426 (App. 1992)

Klensin v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 399, 459 P.2d 316 (1969)

10.3.1.4. Courts do not consider wisdom or desirability of zoning ordinance.

It is not the function of the court to review a zoning ordinance as to wisdom or desirability.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303 (1926)

Kaiser Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 649 F. Supp. 926 (D. Hawaii 1986), aff'd, 898 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1990)

Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix, 122 Ariz. 102, 593 P.2d 656 (1979)

City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 537 P.2d 934 (1975)

Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 553, 720 P.2d 528 (App. 1985), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 149 Ariz. 538, 720 P.2d 513, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 986 (1986)

City of Tempe v. Rasor, 24 Ariz.App. 118, 536 P.2d 239 (1975)

Peabody v. City of Tucson, 14 Ariz.App. 576, 485 P.2d 565 (1971)

Courson v. City of Tucson, 10 Ariz.App. 159, 457 P.2d 346 (1969)

Rubi v. 49'er Country Club Estates, Inc., 7 Ariz.App. 408, 440 P.2d 44 (1968)

10.3.2. Presumption of validity.

Zoning ordinances are presumed to be valid.

Lydo Enters., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 745 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1984)

Kaiser Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 649 F. Supp. 926 (D. Hawaii 1986), aff'd, 898 F.2d 112 (9th Cir. 1990)

Wait v. City of Scottsdale, 127 Ariz. 107, 618 P.2d 601 (1980)

City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 112 Ariz. 64, 537 P.2d 934 (1975)

City of Phoenix v. Fehlner, 90 Ariz. 13, 363 P.2d 607 (1961)

Hart v. Bayless Inv. & Trading Co., 86 Ariz. 379, 346 P.2d 1101 (1959)

Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, 152...