5. Burden of proof
a. "Respondent, as plaintiff before the trial court, was
required to establish abuse of discretion on the part of the city council...."
Henderson v. Henderson Auto, 77 Nev. 118, 122, 359 P.2d 743 (1961). No. 5.
b. An ordinance placing the burden of proof on the use permit
applicant to prove that the use is necessary to promote the public health, convenience,
safety and welfare, etc., is constitutional.
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 254, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.
c. "The zoning power is one of the tools of government which, in order to be effective, must not be subjected to judicial interference unless clearly necessary. For this reason, a presumption of validity attaches to a zoning ordinance which imposes the burden to prove its invalidity upon the one who challenges it." Id. at 256.
d. "Serpa bore the burden of proving that the Washoe County
Board of County Commissioners' local planning and zoning enactments were invalid
because they were unnecessary to public // health, safety, and welfare. Coronet
Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 439 P.2d 219 (1968)."
Serpa v. County of Washoe, 111 Nev. 1081, 1084-1085, 901 P.2d 690 (1995). No. 47.
e. "[R]espondents had the burden to prove that because of
the narrowness, shallowness, topographic conditions or other exceptional conditions
of the property, the strict application of the zoning regulations would result
in 'exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardships,
upon, the owner of such property.'"
Enterprise Citizens v. Clark Co. Comm'rs, 112 Nev. 649, 654, 918 P.2d 305 (1996). No. 48.
f. Unusual shape and excess dedications may, but "do not
ipso facto create a difficulty or hardship which warrants a variance,
and it is incumbent upon the property owner to prove what the hardship or difficulty
is, i.e., the owner of the property would be deprived of all beneficial uses
of the land if the land was used solely for the purpose allowed in that zone,
the value of the property would decrease significantly if the property was used
solely for the purpose allowed in that zone, a reasonable return on the property
would not be realized unless the variance was granted, the land is virtually
useless as zoned, or no feasible use could be made of the land as zoned." Id.