Smith v. City of Little Rock
648 S.W.2d 454 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal zoning decision is a legislative function presumed to be valid and will not be overturned by a court unless the party challenging it proves the decision was arbitrary and capricious, meaning it was not based on reason but on random choice or personal preference.
Facts:
- The property at issue is located at 4908-4932 West Markham in Little Rock, Arkansas, and was originally zoned for single-family and quiet office use.
- The property owners requested the City of Little Rock rezone the property to a 'C-3' general commercial classification with the intention of having a Wendy's restaurant built on the site.
- The subject property is located in a largely residential neighborhood, and numerous residents chose to live there because of its quiet character.
- The property is situated on the north side of Markham Street, a major traffic corridor. The south side of Markham Street contains the State Hospital, the University of Arkansas Medical Center, and War Memorial Stadium.
- The blocks surrounding the property contain a mix of uses, including single-family homes, a scuba shop, and, further away, other commercial establishments like a McDonald's, an Exxon station, and various restaurants.
- The Little Rock City Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request.
- Neighboring property owners objected to the rezoning, citing concerns about increased traffic, noise, litter, unpleasant odors, and light pollution.
Procedural Posture:
- The Little Rock City Board of Directors passed an ordinance rezoning the subject property.
- A group of neighboring property owners (appellants) filed a lawsuit in chancery court (a court of first instance) seeking to have the rezoning ordinance set aside.
- The chancellor held that the Board's action was presumed reasonable and that the appellants had failed to prove it was arbitrary, thereby denying their petition.
- The property owners appealed the chancellor's decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the Little Rock City Board of Directors' decision to rezone a property from single-family and quiet office use to general commercial use an arbitrary and capricious exercise of its legislative power?
Opinions:
Majority - Frank Holt, Justice
No. The Little Rock City Board of Directors' decision to rezone the property was not an arbitrary and capricious exercise of its legislative power. Zoning is a legislative function, and courts must presume that the city board acted in a fair, just, and reasonable manner. The burden is on the appellants to prove the action was arbitrary, which is defined as arising from 'unrestrained exercise of will, caprice, or personal preference, rather than on reason or nature.' Courts are not 'super zoning commissions' and may not substitute their judgment for that of the city. The presence of significant commercial activity along the Markham Street corridor provides a rational basis for the board's decision. Furthermore, the city's comprehensive plan is merely an advisory guide and not legally binding, and the city's zoning administrator testified that the rezoning was not inconsistent with the plan and did not constitute 'spot zoning.'
Dissenting - Darrell Hickman, Justice
Yes. The City of Little Rock's action was arbitrary and capricious. The rezoning constitutes a clear case of 'spot zoning,' which is invalid because it is primarily for the private interest of the property owner and is inconsistent with the community's general plan. The decision is a flagrant breach of faith with the history of the residential area, the city's own recently adopted Heights/Hillcrest Plan, and a previous court decision upholding the residential character of this specific area. The only justifications for the rezoning are economic benefits, which are not legally sufficient. Allowing a fast-food restaurant, an enterprise 'totally incompatible with single family residences,' destroys the integrity of an established, serene neighborhood for private gain.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle of judicial deference to legislative zoning decisions in Arkansas. It establishes a very high bar for challengers, requiring them to prove that a zoning ordinance is completely without a rational basis, rather than merely being unwise or unpopular. The decision clarifies that non-binding comprehensive plans serve as guides and do not legally prevent a city from making inconsistent zoning changes. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for residents to successfully challenge zoning amendments in court, reinforcing the broad discretionary power of municipal legislative bodies in matters of land use.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. City of Little Rock