26. Neighbors. [See also Protest]
    a. "Respondent properly calls attention to the situation of petitioner's neighbors who have purchased and built homes in this district in their reliance on the continued effectiveness of the ordinance and the land use plan and the classifications therein provided...." [upholds denial of bldg. permit which would have allowed conversion to duplex not permitted in zone]
State v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 640, 224 P.2d 309 (1950). No. 2.
    b. "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.
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 257, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.

    c. "Here, particularly in light of the complaints from neighbors regarding Mad Dogs' operation, there is no basis for characterizing the County's policy of granting conditional use permits on a temporary basis as fraudulent or arbitrary, even if the policy may lead to future litigation and generate uncertainty for Mad Dogs regarding possible future plans for its restaurant."
Board of Co. Comm'rs v. C.A.G. Inc., 98 Nev. 497, 501, 654 P.2d 531 (1982). No. 27.