63. Prudent Businessman
1. Valuation/Prudent Businessman: "'(E)lements that can fairly enter into the question of value and which an ordinarily prudent business man would consider before forming judgment in making a purchase'" are to be considered. Clark Co. School Dist. v. Mueller, 76 Nev. 11, 19, 348 P.2d 164 (1960) (#30)
2. Valuation/Prudent Businessman: "In determining this value, the finder of fact may consider such factors as would be considered by a prudent businessperson before purchasing such property." [quoting Shaddock, #29] Skyland Water v. Tahoe Douglas Dist., 95 Nev. 289, 291, 593 P.2d 1066 (1979) (#60)
3. Valuation/Prudent Businessman: "The court and jury may consider 'other elements that can fairly enter into the question of value and which an ordinarily prudent businessman would consider before forming judgment in making a purchase.'" [quoting Tacchino, #50] City of Elko v. Zillich, 100 Nev. 366, 370, 683 P.2d 5 (1984) (#67)
4. "The landowner is entitled to just compensation
for the government's taking of private property [fn to Nev. Const. art. 1, sec.
8] and has the burden of establishing the value of land so taken. [fn to State
v. Pinson, 66 Nev. 227, 237-238, 207 P.2d 1105, 1110(1949)] Just compensation
is determined by the property's market value 'by reference to the highest and
best use for which the land is available and for which it is plainly adaptable.'
[fn. to County of Clark v. Alper, 100 Nev. 382, 386-87,
685 P.2d 943, 946 (1984)] However, such use must be reasonably probable.
[fn to County of Clark v. Buckwalter, 115 Nev. 58,
63, 974 P.2d 1162, 1165 (1999)] In general, the trier of fact may consider
zoning restrictions permitting a viable economic use of the property in determining
the property's value. [fn to Alper, 100 Nev. at 389, 685 P.2d at 948] In fact,
the district court should give 'due consideration...to those zoning ordinances
that would be taken into account by a prudent and willing buyer. [fn: Id. at
390, 685 P.2d at 948] City of Las Vegas v. Bustos, 119
Nev. 360, 362, 75 P.2d 351 (2003)
[Ed: City argued that it was required to defer to the general or master plan and that the district court could not reasonably conclude that the city would grant a zoning change in noncompliance with its master plan. The city's own planning supervisor testified that the zoning change would require an amendment to the master plan, but that spot zoning is "fairly common" and that the city council frequently proceeds contrarily. Court held that "the district court's findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence" and that the district court "determined that a reasonable and prudent buyer would conclude that he or she could likely obtain a zoning change, given the character of the neighborhood, the high volume of traffic on Alta Drive, and the surrounding properties." The district court likely didn't appreciate hearing the city argue for rare adherence to its master plan. This case doesn't say anything new, but does at least keep the condemnor from hiding behind its master plan and is instructive for the practitioner.]
5. "The trier of fact may consider the effect of future rezoning or variances on the highest and best use of the condemned property when determining its value." City of Las Vegas v. Bustos, 119 Nev. 360, 362, 75 P.2d 351 (2003)