Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan
617 P.2d 388 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An applicant for subdivision approval or a building permit acquires a vested right to approval if the application conforms to the zoning ordinances in effect at the time of application. A municipality may not retroactively apply a subsequent zoning change to deny the application unless the change was already pending when the application was filed or the municipality can demonstrate a compelling, countervailing public interest.
Facts:
- In February 1969, Western Land Equities, Inc. purchased 18.53 acres of property within the City of Logan.
- In April 1976, the property was zoned M-1 (manufacturing), which expressly permitted the development of single-family dwellings.
- On July 13, 1977, Western Land Equities submitted a preliminary subdivision plan to the Logan City Planning Commission to develop single-family housing, a use permitted by the existing M-1 zone.
- After several meetings where the matter was tabled and referred to the municipal council, the planning commission went on record as opposing subdivisions in M-1 zones on October 12, 1977.
- On November 9, 1977, the planning commission formally rejected the proposed subdivision plan.
- While litigation was pending, on January 19, 1978, the city enacted a change to the zoning ordinance that prohibited single-family subdivisions in the M-1 zone except by special use permit.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, Western Land Equities, Inc., appealed the planning commission's rejection to the Logan Municipal Council, which denied the appeal.
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint against the City of Logan in district court (trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they had a vested right to develop the subdivision and the city was estopped from withholding approval based on the newly amended ordinance.
- The defendants, the City of Logan, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Utah.
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 a zoning ordinance amendment, enacted after a developer submits a compliant subdivision application, retroactively apply to that application and give the municipality authority to deny it?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, J.
No. An applicant is entitled to subdivision approval if the proposed development meets the zoning requirements in existence at the time of application and the applicant proceeds with reasonable diligence, absent a compelling, countervailing public interest. The court rejects the majority 'zoning estoppel' rule, which requires a developer to show substantial reliance on a permit to gain a vested right, as unpredictable and unfair. Instead, it adopts a minority 'vesting' rule where rights are fixed at the time of a compliant application. This rule provides certainty to landowners and prevents municipalities from changing the rules 'in midstream' without a strong justification. Here, the city’s concerns about access roads and proximity to a railroad were not compelling enough to overcome the developer's vested right to have its application judged by the ordinance in effect when it was submitted.
Concurring - Crockett, C.J.
Concurred in the result without a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a minority 'early vesting' rule in Utah, providing greater predictability for land developers than the more common 'substantial reliance' or 'zoning estoppel' tests. By fixing a developer's rights at the time of submitting a compliant application, the court shifts the burden to the municipality to prove a 'compelling public interest' to justify retroactive application of new laws. This precedent makes it more difficult for cities to use zoning changes to block disfavored but legally compliant projects, thereby fostering a more stable and developer-friendly legal environment. It prioritizes fairness and predictability in land use regulation over municipal discretion.
Unlock the full brief for Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan