## Facts

- In 1975, the City of Gallup entered into an Assessment Procedure Agreement (APA) with developers of the Mentmore East subdivision, including a predecessor in interest to Gallup Westside Development, LLC and Hadden Construction Company, Inc. (collectively, Westside).
- The City approved final subdivision plats for Mentmore East (including Unit 3), with the approval tied to the developers’ performance of public infrastructure improvements through the APA process.
- The APA set out procedures for installing required improvements, restricted the sale of lots before completion of infrastructure work, made plat approval expressly conditional on satisfying APA conditions, and allowed the City to vacate the plats if those conditions were not met.
- The APA also required that improvements be built only after City approval of plans and specifications, and in line with the plans and specifications then used by the City.
- The APA expired in 1995.
- In 1996, Westside sought a site development review to proceed with development of Unit 3.
- The City prepared a letter agreement that would extend the expired APA and amend its terms so the remaining work would match then-current City requirements, including added or updated infrastructure obligations (such as sidewalks, a park, and utility relocation/undergrounding).
- Westside refused to sign the City’s proposed letter agreement and submitted its own alternative proposal to extend the APA on different terms.
- The City’s Planning and Zoning Commission rejected Westside’s proposal and approved the City’s extension/amendment approach; the City Council affirmed after hearings.
- Westside appealed to the district court, which reversed the City’s decision, found Westside had vested rights based on the earlier approvals, and issued a writ of mandamus directing the City to proceed under the original APA terms without amendment.
- The City appealed from the district court’s final order and the writ of mandamus.

## Issues

1. Whether Westside had vested rights to develop Unit 3 under the expired APA that prevented the City from extending the APA only with updated conditions.
2. Whether the district court properly issued mandamus compelling the City to proceed under the original APA terms and, in doing so, effectively replaced the City’s administrative judgment.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico held Westside did not have vested rights in developing Unit 3 under the expired APA.
- The court reversed the district court’s final order.
- The court quashed the writ of mandamus.
- The court ruled that, because the APA had expired and the project remained subject to conditions and City approvals, the City was not required to proceed under the original, outdated terms when asked to extend the agreement years later.
- The court concluded mandamus was not available to force the City to treat the original APA as still controlling, where the City’s decision involved judgment within its land-use and infrastructure authority.

## Legal Principles

- Vested rights in land development generally require more than preliminary approvals or expectations; they ordinarily require substantial reliance, commonly shown by significant obligations or expenditures made in reliance on a valid governmental approval.
- When subdivision approval is expressly conditional on completing infrastructure obligations and on later City approval of plans and specifications, the developer’s ability to proceed remains conditional rather than fixed as an unchangeable entitlement.
- An improvement agreement that has expired does not, by itself, give a developer a continuing right to complete later phases under earlier standards.
- A municipality may require current infrastructure conditions when it is asked to extend or renew an expired subdivision improvement framework, especially where the original arrangement contemplated City review of plans and specifications.
- Mandamus is limited to enforcing a clear, nondiscretionary legal duty; it cannot be used to control or override discretionary municipal land-use decisions or to require a specific outcome in an administrative matter.
- In reviewing municipal administrative action, a district court may not issue mandamus as a substitute for the municipal bodies’ decision-making where the governing framework leaves room for City judgment on conditions.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals held that Westside had no vested right to develop Unit 3 under the terms of an APA that expired in 1995, so the City could condition any extension on updated infrastructure requirements consistent with current City standards. Because the City’s decision involved discretionary municipal authority and there was no clear legal duty to proceed under the original APA without change, the district court erred in issuing mandamus; the appellate court reversed and quashed the writ.


Gallup Westside Development, LLC v. City of Gallup, 84 P.3d 78 (2003)