Dawe v. City of Scottsdale
581 P.2d 1136, 1978 Ariz. LEXIS 255, 119 Ariz. 486 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The act of recording a subdivision plat, without more, does not create a vested right for a landowner to develop the property according to that plat. The property remains subject to subsequent, more restrictive zoning ordinances enacted before any substantial work or construction has commenced.
Facts:
- In late 1959, a court decision temporarily invalidated all Maricopa County zoning ordinances, creating a legal vacuum.
- During this period, the predecessors of the current landowners recorded the Palo Verde Terrace subdivision plat, which divided the property into lots of 10,000 square feet each to avoid an anticipated 35,000 square-foot minimum lot size requirement.
- From the time the plat was recorded in 1960 until the lawsuit was filed in 1975, the property remained entirely vacant and unimproved.
- In 1963, the City of Scottsdale annexed the territory that included the Palo Verde Terrace property.
- After the annexation, Scottsdale's zoning regulations required a minimum lot size of 35,000 square feet for the area, conflicting with the smaller lots on the recorded plat.
Procedural Posture:
- The property owners (appellants) sued the City of Scottsdale in the Superior Court (trial court) for a declaratory judgment and to compel the issuance of construction permits.
- The Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of the City of Scottsdale, finding its zoning ordinance applicable to the property.
- The property owners appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Superior Court.
- The City of Scottsdale then successfully petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere recording of a subdivision plat grant a landowner a vested right to develop the property in accordance with the plat, thereby immunizing the land from a subsequently enacted, more restrictive municipal zoning ordinance?
Opinions:
Majority - Struckmeyer, Vice Chief Justice
No, the mere recording of a subdivision plat does not grant a landowner a vested right to develop the property in accordance with that plat. Such an action is insufficient to immunize the land from a subsequently enacted, more restrictive municipal zoning ordinance. The court reasoned that vested rights are not established by preliminary paperwork alone, such as filing a map. To acquire a vested right, a property owner must have made substantial expenditures or commenced construction in good faith reliance on the previously existing regulations. The court distinguished its prior holding in Robinson v. Lintz, explaining that Robinson established that a plat makes lot sizes legally recognized upon recording but did not hold that such lots are immune from future zoning changes, especially where the government in that case had unlawfully delayed the recording process. By analogizing to building permits, the court, citing Verner v. Redman, affirmed that rights vest only upon substantial work, not upon the mere issuance of a permit or, in this case, the recording of a plat. The court adopted the widely held view that allowing plat filing to freeze zoning would improperly foreclose a municipality's ability to regulate land use for the public good.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle in Arizona that vested rights in land use require substantial reliance and tangible action, not just the fulfillment of preliminary administrative steps. It aligns Arizona with the majority rule in other jurisdictions, preventing landowners from 'banking' favorable zoning by recording a plat and then waiting indefinitely to develop. The ruling reinforces the authority of municipalities to enact and apply zoning regulations to address evolving community needs, even on previously subdivided land, so long as development has not significantly commenced. For future developers, this case establishes that they must act with diligence and make material progress on a project to secure their development rights against subsequent regulatory changes.
