32. Presumption. [See also Scope of review]
 
    a. "The presumption of validity which attaches to local zoning enactments includes also amendments thereto which constitute rezoning."
McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 242, 362 P.2d 268 (1961). No. 6.
 
    b. "Because the board's action is clothed with the presumption of validity, and is supported by substantial evidence, in the absence of a showing of an abuse of its discretion, the lower court was without power to nullify the same." Id.
 
    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."
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 256, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.
 
    d. "While such a strict view of the invariable application of a master plan on zoning matters may lend a high degree of predictability to prospective land uses and facilitate usage planning by land owners, we do not perceive the legislative intent to be so confining and inflexible. We therefore choose to view a master plan as a standard that commands deference and a presumption of applicability, rather than a legislative straight-jacket from which no leave may be taken."
Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721 (1989). No. 36.
 
    e. "No presumption of validity attaches to the decision of a district court that does not hear additional evidence in reviewing a zoning decision made by a municipality. (citation omitted) However, where the district court takes additional evidence, the scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the district court committed an abuse of discretion or made an error of law."
City of Reno v. Harris, 111 Nev. 672, 677, 895 P.2d 663 (1995). No. 45.
 
    f. The function of the district court is to ascertain as a matter of law whether there was substantial evidence before the Board which would sustain the Board's actions, and the function of this court at this time is the same as that of the district court. McKenzie v. Shelly, 77 Nev. 237, 242, 362 P.2d 268, 270 (1961). Like the district court, this court is limited to the record made before the Board in reviewing the Board's decision. Laughlin, 111 Nev. at 558, 893 P.2d at 384. Finally, 'no pre // sumption of validity attaches to the decision of a district court that does not hear additional evidence in reviewing a zoning decision made by a municipality.' City of Reno v. Harris, 111 Nev. 672, 677, 895 P.2d 663, 666 (1995)."
Enterprise Citizens v. Clark Co. Comm'rs, 112 Nev. 649, 653, 918 P.2d 305 (1996)No. 48.
 
    g. "The master plan of a community is a 'standard that commands deference and a presumption of applicability,' but should not be viewed as a 'legislative straightjacket from which no leave can be taken.' Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92, 96, 769 P.2d 721, 723 (1989)." Id. at 659.