## Facts

- The Little Rock City Board of Directors unanimously rezoned parcels on West Markham Street from single-family/quiet office to C-3 general commercial at the owners’ request.
- The rezoning would allow construction of a Wendy’s restaurant on the site.
- Nearby residents and property owners objected, citing expected increases in traffic, noise, litter, odor, and nighttime lighting, and alleging negative effects on property values.
- Opponents argued the change conflicted with the Heights/Hillcrest land-use plan and constituted impermissible spot zoning.
- The City’s zoning administrator testified that numerous commercial uses existed within several blocks, that West Markham traffic was below capacity, and that the land-use plan was advisory rather than binding.

## Issues

1. Whether the rezoning ordinance was arbitrary and capricious, including whether it constituted spot zoning or lacked a reasonable relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
2. Whether inconsistency with an area land-use plan, and nearby residents’ reliance on existing residential zoning, required invalidation of the rezoning.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s denial of relief and upheld the rezoning ordinance.
- The Court held challengers did not meet their burden to prove the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously.
- The Court accepted the City’s evidence that the area contained nearby commercial uses and treated the rezoning as part of a mixed-use context rather than isolated spot zoning.
- The Court held the area land-use plan was advisory and not binding; deviation from it did not, by itself, show arbitrariness.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal rezoning decisions carry a presumption of validity; the challenger bears the burden to prove the action was arbitrary and capricious.
- Appellate review of the chancellor’s decision is for clear error (against the preponderance of the evidence).
- A comprehensive or area land-use plan may guide decisionmaking but, when advisory, does not legally control rezoning outcomes.
- Spot-zoning claims turn on context; the existence of surrounding commercial activity may support a finding that a rezoning is rational rather than arbitrary.
- Neighboring owners’ reliance on existing zoning is a consideration but does not create a vested right preventing later rezoning absent proof of arbitrariness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Little Rock’s rezoning to C-3 commercial because the challengers failed to prove the City acted arbitrarily or capriciously, and because the relevant land-use plan was advisory rather than binding.


Smith v. City of Little Rock, 279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W.2d 454 (Ark. 1983)