## Facts

- Douglas County voters approved the Sustainable Growth Initiative (SGI), amending the county development code to cap new dwelling units at 280 per year.
- The county master plan contemplated managed growth, including an annual growth range of approximately 2% to 3.5%.
- Douglas County and multiple landowners, developers, and industry groups sued to invalidate the SGI.
- Plaintiffs alleged the SGI (1) conflicted with the county master plan, (2) effected an unconstitutional taking, and (3) violated state constitutional and statutory provisions governing land-use regulation and initiatives.
- The district court granted summary judgment against the SGI, ruling it conflicted with the master plan.
- The initiative’s proponent appealed; certain plaintiffs cross-appealed to press additional constitutional and statutory challenges.

## Issues

1. Whether the SGI’s fixed annual cap on new dwelling units was inconsistent with the county master plan so as to be invalid under Nevada planning law.
2. Whether the SGI constituted an unconstitutional taking on its face.
3. Whether the SGI was facially invalid because it exceeded the local initiative power or conflicted with Nevada constitutional or statutory requirements (including separation-of-powers and initiative-limit arguments).

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment invalidating the SGI and remanded.
- The court held the SGI was not invalid as a matter of law for inconsistency with the county master plan.
- The court rejected a facial takings challenge, concluding any takings claim would depend on property-specific facts and would generally require as-applied litigation.
- The court rejected facial statutory and constitutional challenges to the initiative, concluding plaintiffs had not shown a clear conflict with state law or a facial defect in the initiative’s scope or structure.

## Legal Principles

- Master-plan “consistency” does not require numerical identity between a master plan’s growth projections and an implementing ordinance; an ordinance may be more restrictive and still be consistent if it does not frustrate the plan’s objectives.
- A local ordinance conflicts with a master plan when it defeats or frustrates the plan’s policies and goals, not merely because it imposes stricter limits.
- A facial regulatory-takings claim requires showing the law is confiscatory in all (or nearly all) applications; where impacts depend on parcel-specific circumstances, the claim is generally as-applied.
- Local voters may legislate by initiative on matters within the local government’s legislative authority, absent a clear statutory prohibition or direct conflict with state law.
- A generally applicable growth-management measure is legislative in character and may leave administrative implementation to county officials without violating separation-of-powers limits.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court held that Douglas County’s voter-approved annual cap on new dwelling units could not be invalidated on summary judgment as facially inconsistent with the master plan, a facial taking, or otherwise facially unlawful under Nevada constitutional or statutory constraints, and it remanded for further proceedings.


Sustainable Growth Initiative Comm. v. Jumpers, LLC, 122 Nev. 53, 128 P.3d 452 (Nev. 2006)