30. Police power.
    a. "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.
    b. "Under the police power, zoning is a matter within sound legislative action and such legislative action must be upheld if the facts do not show that the bounds of that discretion have been exceeded."
McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 242, 362 P.2d 268 (1961). No. 6.
    c. "It is to be remembered that there are two basic devices for urban planning and development; community zoning and restrictive covenants among private individuals. The beneficial results of private land-use controls are readily apparent throughout the country and are not merely confined to are readily apparent throughout the country and are not merely confined to residential subdivisions. Use of restrictions are encouraged by most planning agencies. Indeed, restrictive covenants are held to be superior to zoning laws which rest on police power."
Meredith v. Washoe Co. Sch. Dist., 84 Nev. 15, 19, 435 P.2d 750 (1968). No. 9.
    d. "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."
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 256, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.  

    e. "The enactment and enforcement of zoning laws and ordinances are valid exercises of the police power which is inherent in the state and which can be delegated to municipal corporations. The power to zone must be found in the police power insofar as in its exercise it imposes use restrictions on property without payment of compensation."
Forman v. Eagle Thrifty Drugs & Markets, 89 Nev. 533, 538, 516 P.2d 1234 (1973). No. 16.