DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Rotter v. Coconino County, 818 P.2d 704.

26 citing documents.

  • Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
  • Nova v. Mesa Board Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
    een Conforming ¶27 Nonconforming use means “any building, structure, or use that was lawfully established and in compliance with all applicable ordinances and laws, but no longer complies with all applicable regulations and standards of development in the zone in which it is located.” Mesa City Code § 11-36-2(B) (2017) (emphasis added); (nonconforming use is a lawful use maintained after the effective date of a zoning ordinance prohibiting such use).
  • Sunrise v. Sallus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Sunrise v. Sallus Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    Fund, ¶ 16 (App. 2004) ().
  • 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
    ¶ 24 A nonconforming land use is a vested property right and is “defined as a lawful use maintained after the effective date of a zoning ordinance prohibiting such use.”
  • State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State v. Fell 97 P.3d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    Additionally, when legislators amend a statute, “‘we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.’ ”
  • Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Jangula v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund 88 P.3d 182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
    ¶ 16 Our conclusion that the 1998 amendment has changed the meaning of § 20-673(C) is strongly supported, if not mandated, by the interpretive principle that when the legislature has amended a statute, “we must presume they intended to change existing law rather than perform a futile act.” , ( , ).
  • Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • Washburn v. Pima County Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    ¶12 P.2d 704 (1991), our supreme court discussed the relationship between a county zoning ordinance that regulated nonconforming uses and the state enabling statutes.
  • City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
  • City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. 78 P.3d 1056 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
    Public Policy on Elimination of Nonconforming Uses ¶ 12 Lastly, the City advances the “judicial” policy, , that nonconforming uses should be eliminated as soon as possible, consistent with constitutional limitations.
  • 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
    ¶ 11 A nonconforming land use is “a lawful use maintained after the effective date of a zoning ordinance prohibiting such use in the applicable district.” , (citing 1 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 6.01 at 446, 447 n. 2 (3d ed.1986)).
  • 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
    (county may prohibit expansion of nonconforming use onto other property); Outdoor Systems, , (city can require removal of nonconforming signs as a condition to issuance of building permits for new development); Circle K Cor
  • City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 939 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1997
  • City of Glendale v. Aldabbagh 939 P.2d 418 Ariz. 1997
    Public policy encourages the elimination of nonconforming uses “primarily because they detract from the effectiveness of comprehensive land use regulation, often resulting in lower property values and blight.”
  • 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
    However, the policy of eliminating nonconforming uses may only be accomplished within the statutory scheme, Gannett Outdoor Co., 159 Ariz. at 461 , 768 P.2d at 193 , and “within the limits of fairness and justice.”
  • Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • Buckelew v. Town of Parker 937 P.2d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (nonconforming uses should be eliminated or reduced to conformity as quickly as possible within limits of fairness and justice).
  • 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
    For an in-depth discussion on the law governing nonconforming uses