## Facts

- Developers purchased 18.53 acres within Logan City and planned a moderately priced single-family residential subdivision.
- Under a 1976 land use ordinance, the tract was zoned M-1 (manufacturing) but allowed single-family dwellings at the time the application was filed.
- Logan required subdivision applicants to consult the planning commission, submit a preliminary plan, and obtain planning commission approval of preliminary and final plans; the commission typically used a two-meeting “first reading/second reading” process.
- The preliminary plan was introduced at a first reading on July 13, 1977.
- At the scheduled second reading on August 10, 1977, the commission questioned the advisability of residential development, tabled the matter, and referred it to the city council.
- The city council sent the matter back to the commission on August 18, 1977 with recommendations for protective covenants and additional access roads.
- The commission tabled the matter for 60 days at a September 14, 1977 second reading and later recorded opposition to subdivisions in M-1 zones (October 12, 1977).
- On November 9, 1977, the planning commission rejected the subdivision, citing conflict with the ordinance and master plan, fire protection concerns tied to access roads, and the presence of railroad tracks on three sides of the property.
- After suit was filed, the city amended the zoning ordinance effective January 19, 1978 to remove single-family subdivisions as a permitted use in M-1 (restricting them to special approval or otherwise prohibiting them).
- The district court ruled the city unlawfully withheld approval and barred enforcement of the zoning change against the proposed development; the city appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the pre-amendment M-1 zoning classification permitted a single-family residential subdivision on the property.
2. Whether a zoning amendment adopted after submission of a conforming subdivision application could be applied to defeat that application.
3. Whether the developers acquired vested rights upon filing a complete, conforming application, requiring approval absent narrow exceptions.
4. Whether the city could be estopped from enforcing the later zoning change against the developers’ proposed use.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the developers.
- The Court held the proposed single-family subdivision was a permitted use under the M-1 zoning ordinance in effect when the application was submitted.
- The Court held the developers obtained a vested right to approval upon filing a conforming application, subject only to limited exceptions.
- The Court held the city could not deny the application based on a later policy shift or later-enacted zoning amendment absent compelling, countervailing public interests.
- The Court upheld relief preventing the city from applying the later zoning change to defeat the already-filed conforming application.

## Legal Principles

- A complete application for subdivision approval (or a building permit) that conforms to the zoning ordinance in effect at filing is entitled to favorable action unless (a) prohibitory ordinance changes are pending at the time of application, or (b) compelling, countervailing public reasons justify denial.
- Vested rights protection is not limited to situations where a developer has already obtained a permit and undertaken substantial construction or expenditures.
- Local governments must process conforming applications in good faith and may not deny them to implement shifting policy preferences inconsistent with the governing ordinance.
- Later-enacted zoning restrictions generally may not be applied retroactively to a conforming application already in the approval process, absent the rule’s stated exceptions.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court required approval of a conforming subdivision application filed before a later zoning restriction, establishing that development rights vest at the time of a complete, compliant application unless a prohibitory change is pending or compelling public interests justify denial.


Western Land Equities, Inc. v. City of Logan, 617 P.2d 388 (Utah 1980)