Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gannett Outdoor Co. v. City of Mesa, 768 P.2d 191.

28 citing documents.

Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson 278 P.3d 314 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 181 P.3d 219 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See Motel 6 Operating Ltd. P’ , (purpose of § 9-462.02(A) “ ‘is to prevent the injustice of forcing retroactive compliance and the doubtful constitutionality of compelling immediate discontinuance of a nonconforming use’ ”)
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Jones v. County of Coconino 35 P.3d 422 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
For these reasons, public policy favors the elimination of nonconforming uses “within the limits of fairness and justice.” Id.
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Systems, Inc. 32 P.3d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
¶ 18 The word “alteration” has been defined by this Court to mean “a change or modification made on a building that does not increase its exterior dimensions.” , (quoting Webster’s New International Dictionary (3d ed.1966)).
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Douglass v. Gendron 20 P.3d 1174 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff 991 P.2d 272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
The purpose of this provision “is to prevent the injustice of forcing retroactive compliance and the doubtful constitutionality of compelling immediate discontinuance of a nonconforming use.”
City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Distinguished City of Tucson v. Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. 983 P.2d 759 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
§ 9-62.02.” ¶ 28 Under similar facts, Division One of this court held that “such a change in the structural support system of the billboard does not constitute a ‘reasonable alteration’ within the meaning of [§ 9-462.02].”
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson 972 P.2d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 928 P.2d 659 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
Outdoor Systems, Inc. v. City of Mesa 819 P.2d 44 Ariz. 1991
Rotter, 169 Ariz. at 273 , 818 P.2d at 708
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
Rotter v. Coconino County 818 P.2d 704 Ariz. 1991
at 207 , 805 P.2d at 1028 ( , ).
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Circle K Corp. v. City of Mesa 803 P.2d 457 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Rotter v. Coconino County 805 P.2d 1019 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
this court, in a case involving a city zoning ordinance, noted that public policy generally favors the eventual elimination of nonconforming uses.
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Murphy v. Town of Chino Valley 789 P.2d 1072 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989