20. Health and welfare.
 
    a. "The great weight of authority convinces us that these sections [allowing only residential buildings & sheds], as applied to the property involved in this case [church], bear no substantial relationship to the promotion of the health, safety, morals, convenience, property, or general welfare of the city of Reno, or of its residential district, and that they constitute an invasion of the property rights of petitioner corporation." [and violation of federal and state constitutions - due process; at 246]
Bishop of Reno v. Hill, 59 Nev. 231, 239, 90 P.2d 217 (1939). No. 1.
 
    b. "The various grounds of the several courts supporting such ordinances are discussed at length, and we refer to the opinion in that case [Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 120, 71 L.Ed. 303] and the annotation following as forever settling this exercise of the police power, unless it clearly appears that the ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable and has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare."
State v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 641, 224 P.2d 309 (1950). No. 2.
 
    c. "The court recognizes the fact that the matter of zoning has received the attention of commissions and experts whose reports bear every evidence of painstaking consideration, and that they concur in the view that the segregation of residential, business and industrial buildings 'will increase the safety and security of home life, greatly tend to prevent street accidents, especially to children, by reducing the traffic and resulting confusion in residential sections, decrease noise and other conditions which produce or intensify nervous disorders, preserve a more favorable environment in which to rear children, etc.'"  Id. at 641.
 
    d. "Unless we can say that the ordinance, as it affects petitioner's property, discloses an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of power by the zoning authorities and has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare, it is neither the duty nor the province of this court to interfere with the discretion invested in these authorities."  Id. at 641.
 
    e. "Petitioner's incidental inconvenience and damage must give way to the // health, comfort, welfare and safety of the public, and his use of his property may be reasonably restricted accordingly. He may use it for the purposes for which other property in the district may be used."
Id. at 643-644.
 
    f. An ordinance placing the burden of proof on the special 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.
 
    g. "The oft repeated, although ill defined, limitation upon the exercise of the zoning power, requires that zoning ordinances be enacted for the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. (citation omitted) Such ordinances must bear a substantial relationship to those police power purposes. (citation omitted) And if the ordinance does, in its application to specific properties, impose an 'unnecessary hardship,' it cannot be termed a reasonable or constitutional exercise of the police power. To preserve the validity of the zoning ordinance in its application to the community in general, the use permit and variance provisions of the ordinance function as an 'escape valve,' so that when regulations which apply to all are unnecessarily burdensome to a few because of certain unique circumstances, a means of relief from the mandate is provided." Id. at 256.
 
     h. "Zoning laws are passed in the interest of the public welfare and the benefit accrues not only to the municipality but also to the neighboring land owners." Id. at 257.
 
    i. "Aside from the individual property owner's interest in relying on the zoning regulation of the area, there is a legitimate public interest involved in density zoning which affects the 'health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community." Id.at 257.
 
    j. "A street vacation to private interest is not sufficient, per se, to invalidate the governmental action. The public welfare may be served by placing street lands in the hands of private individuals. (citations omitted). The record reflects a basis for concluding that in spite of Eldorado's ownership of the vacated portion of the street, the public will also be benefited. The parking garage should alleviate Henderson's parking problems while the hotel has the potential of stimulating the city's economy."
L & T Corp. v. City of Henderson, 98 Nev. 501, 503, 654 P.2d 1015 (1982). No. 28.
 
    k. Though somewhat duplicative, "Architectural supervision may act as an added precaution or 'failsafe' system to assure proper deference to the general welfare purposes of title 29."
Bd. of County Comm'rs v. CMC of Nevada, 99 Nev. 739, 746, 670 P.2d 102 (1983). No. 29.
 
    l. "The state has delegated to the city express authority to regulate the location of sexually oriented businesses. General authority to regulate the location and use of buildings and structures, in order to promote the health and general welfare of the community, is granted under NRS 278.020 and NRS 278.250. These state statutes do not constitute a comprehensive statutory scheme which purports to regulate the location of sexually oriented businesses throughout the state and do not indicate any attempt by the state to occupy the field. To the contrary, the intent of the state, as clearly manifested in the above statutes, is to vest in local government the authority to regulate such matters as they see fit. These ordinances are not, as claimed by Flick, an excessive exercise of municipal legislative power that renders the ordinances void under state law." at 90.
Flick Theater v. City of Las Vegas, 104 Nev. 87, 90, 752 P.2d 235 (1988). No. 35.

    m. "The Kohler court [Town of Vienna Council v. Kohler, 244 S.E.2d 542, 548 (1978)] concluded that 'a denial of a rezoning request will not be sustained if under all the facts of the particular case, the denial is unreasonable, or is discriminatory, or is without substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.'"
Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 95, 769 P.2d 721 (1989). No. 36.
 
    n. "We are simply unable to discern from the record that the Council adequately focused its attention on the merits of the project and its total impact on the community. Considerations of public health, safety and welfare demand both such a focused attention and the exercise of a fair and enlightened discretion by the Council based upon substantial evidence." Id. at 98.
 
    o. "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.

    p. "County and local governments can place more burdensome restrictions on local growth and development as long as those restrictions are consistent with the relevant long-term comprehensive plans, Nevada law, and notions of public welfare." Id. at 1085.