92. Zoning
    1. Valuation/Zoning: Evidence that the appropriate authority would probably grant a variance if application were made is relevant to severance damage, if offered through a competent witness. Andrews v. Kingsbury Gen. Improvement, 84 Nev. 88, 90, 436 P.2d 813 (1968) (#41)
    2. Valuation/Zoning: The trial court erred in relying on present zoning as multiple-residential in determining highest and best use, when "(i)t is clear from the record that the highest and best use of the property is industrial...", as noted in the Las Vegas Master Plan.  Sorenson v. State ex rel. Dep't Hwys., 92 Nev. 445, 446-447, 552 P.2d 487 (1976) (#54)
[Gunderson disqualified himself; no reason apparent here why the court did not defer to the findings of the trial judge. No issue of law involved, only of fact, and substantial evidence in the record. Substantial problem here as to effect of master plans, but no analysis. (c.g.)] (#54)
    3. Valuation/Zoning: A transferable grandfathered right to use a parcel in variance with zoning is an element which would be considered by a prospective purchaser and is admissible.  City of Elko v. Zillich, 100 Nev. 366, 370-371, 683 P.2d 5 (1984) (#67)
    4. Valuation/Zoning: "As a restriction on land use, an existing zoning ordinance is generally regarded as a proper matter for the jury's consideration."  County of Clark v. Alper, 100 Nev. 382, 387, 685 P.2d 943 (1984) (#68)
    5. Valuation/Zoning: "Ordinarily, zoning restrictions permitting a viable economic use of the property may be considered for valuation purposes." Id. at 389 (#68)
    6. Valuation/Zoning: "(D)ue consideration should be given to those zoning ordinances that would be taken into account by a prudent and willing buyer," but a reasonable possibility of obtaining a zoning change may also be considered. Id. at 390/n. 6 (#68)
    7. Severance damages/Diversion of traffic/Good will/Zoning: "Some damages, of course, resulting from the orderly pursuits of society, are simply not compensable. See Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563, 566, 459 P.2d 772, 774 (1969) (there is no right to compensation for damages resulting from reasonable zoning regulations, or by reason of the diversion of traffic away from one's property); State ex rel. Herman v. Schaffer, 467 P.2d 66, 73-74 (Ariz. 1970) (no measure of compensation may be calculated based on noncompensable factors such as diversion of traffic or loss of customers, goodwill, income or profits, except to the extent that the highest and best use of the real estate in question is affected thereby). The 'before and after' damages referred to in Linnecke pertain exclusively to, those arising in connection with a diminution in the value of the Landowners real estate caused by the substantial impairment of access." Schwartz v. State, Dep't of Transp., 111 Nev. 999, 1003, n. 4, 900 P.2d 939 (1995). (#81)

    8. "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.]

    9. "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)