13. Equal protection.
a. "'It is not per se a sufficient reason for a variation that
the nonconforming use is more profitable to the landowner. (citations omitted)
The converse of this would emasculate the principle of zoning, for invidious distinctions
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84
Nev. 250, 258, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.
b. "(A) facially valid ordinance may be the vehicle for unequal
protection of the law when applied in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Yick
Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373-74 (1886). More particularly, we have noted
that '[e]qual protection of the law has long been recognized to mean that no class
of persons shall be denied the same protection of the law which is enjoyed by
other classes in like circumstances.' Allen v. State, 100 Nev. 130,
135, 676 P.2d 792, 795 (1984) (emphasis added)."
City of Las Vegas v. 1017 S. Main Corp.,
110 Nev. 1227, 1234-1235, 885 P.2d 552 (1994). No. 42.