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
- 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.
- Whether the SGI constituted an unconstitutional taking on its face.
- 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.