10.4. TRIAL PRACTICE.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

10.4. Trial practice.

10.4.1. Burden of proof.

10.4.1.1. To show zoning restrictions are invalid or unconstitutional.

A property owner has the burden to show that zoning restrictions are invalid or unconstitutional.

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

Ranch 57 v. City of Yuma, 152 Ariz. 218, 731 P.2d 113 (App. 1986) (landowner must prove that any use permitted by zoning ordinance will fail to yield a reasonable return on the property)

But see A.R.S. §§ 9-500.12 and 11-832

10.4.1.2. To overcome the presumption of validity.

A person challenging a zoning ordinance has the burden of overcoming the presumption that the ordinance is valid.

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

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) (party asserting invalidity must clearly and affirmatively demonstrate unconstitutionality)

State v. Zack, 138 Ariz. 266, 674 P.2d 329 (App. 1983)

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

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

But see A.R.S. §§ 9-500.12 and 11-832 (placing on the government "the burden to establish that there is an essential nexus between the dedication or exaction and a legitimate governmental interest")

10.4.1.3. To prove denial of economically viable use of land.

A landowner who challenges a land use regulation as being an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation has the burden to prove that the...