## Facts

- The City of Pharr enacted an ordinance rezoning a 10.1-acre rectangular tract from R-1 (single-family) to R-3 (multi-family).
- The tract was owned by Mayfair Minerals, Inc.; Urban Housing Associates sought the rezoning to construct about fifty family units (duplexes and quadruplexes).
- City planning staff recommended approval, but the Planning and Zoning Commission rejected the recommendation; the City Council rezoned the tract by a 4–1 vote.
- The tract lay within a largely undeveloped area of vacant farmlands that had been zoned for single-family use in 1974.
- Nearby conditions included: proximity to a major highway experiencing commercial growth tied to a proposed international bridge; a major east–west traffic artery (Sam Houston Street) nearby; a developed single-family subdivision bordering the tract to the west; and areas of multi-family zoning a short distance away.
- Tippitt and other neighboring landowners sued to declare the rezoning ordinance invalid; the trial court upheld the ordinance.
- Tippitt alone appealed; the court of civil appeals reversed and nullified the ordinance; the Texas Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning ordinance was arbitrary and invalid as unlawful “spot zoning” or piecemeal zoning inconsistent with the city’s comprehensive planning and unsupported by changed conditions or the public welfare.
2. What level of judicial deference applies to a municipal rezoning decision and what burden the challenger must meet to invalidate it.

## Decision

- The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of civil appeals and affirmed the trial court, upholding the rezoning ordinance.
- The court held the ordinance was presumed valid as a legislative act and Tippitt did not meet the heavy burden to prove arbitrariness or caprice.
- The court concluded the rezoning was not unlawful spot zoning given the tract’s size, surrounding undeveloped character, nearby multi-family zoning, and evidence supporting a public need for multi-family housing.

## Legal Principles

- Zoning and rezoning are legislative actions presumed valid; courts will not substitute their judgment for that of the city council when the matter is fairly debatable.
- The challenger bears a heavy burden to show the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable, or without a reasonable relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- A rezoning of a substantial tract is less likely to constitute unlawful spot zoning, particularly where surrounding uses and development trends support the change and the action is not a small, isolated exception serving only private interests.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court sustained the City of Pharr’s rezoning of a 10.1-acre tract to multi-family use, holding that the ordinance remained within legislative discretion and that the challenger failed to prove it was arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful spot zoning.


City of Pharr v. Tippitt, 616 S.W.2d 173 (Tex. 1981)