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
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
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
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.