7.2. THEORY.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

7.2. Theory.

The nonconforming use doctrine reconciles the existing rights of property owners with the government's desire to regulate or eliminate specific uses.

Baby Tam & Co., Inc. v. City of Las Vegas, 247 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2001) (in the absence of a law protecting nonconforming uses, a zoning ordinance may prohibit a use in existence before its enactment)

City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh, 189 Ariz. 140, 939 P.2d 418 (1997) (nonconforming uses should be eliminated or reduced to conformity as quickly as possible within the limits of fairness and justice)

Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 301, 819 P.2d 44 (1991) (public policy favors the eventual elimination of nonconforming uses; regulations governing nonconforming uses are excepted from the general rule that zoning ordinances should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner); but see Rotter v. Coconino County, 169 Ariz. 269, 818...