(Caution: 1998 Prop. 105 applies)
A. If the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess private real property are reduced by the enactment or applicability of any land use law enacted after the date the property is transferred to the owner and such action reduces the fair market value of the property the owner is entitled to just compensation from this state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law.
B. This section does not apply to land use laws that:
1. Limit or prohibit a use or division of real property for the protection of the public's health and safety, including rules and regulations relating to fire and building codes, health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, solid or hazardous waste, and pollution control;
2. Limit or prohibit the use or division of real property commonly and historically recognized as a public nuisance under common law;
3. Are required by federal law;
4. Limit or prohibit the use or division of a property for the purpose of housing sex offenders, selling illegal drugs, liquor control, or pornography, obscenity, nude or topless dancing, and other adult oriented businesses if the land use laws are consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States;
5. Establish locations for utility facilities;
6. Do not directly regulate an owner's land; or
7. Were enacted before the effective date of this section.
C. This state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law has the burden of demonstrating that the land use law is exempt pursuant to subsection B.
D. The owner shall not be required to first submit a land use application to remove, modify, vary or otherwise alter the application of the land use law to the owner's property as a prerequisite to demanding or receiving just compensation pursuant to this section.
E. If a land use law continues to apply to private real property more than ninety days after the owner of the property makes a written demand in a specific amount for just compensation to this state or the political subdivision of this state that enacted the land use law, the owner has a cause of action for just compensation in a court in the county in which the property is located, unless this state or political subdivision of this state and the owner reach an agreement on the amount of just compensation to be paid, or unless this state or political subdivision of this state amends, repeals, or issues to the landowner a binding waiver of enforcement of the land use law on the owner's specific parcel.
F. Any demand for landowner relief or any waiver that is granted in lieu of compensation runs with the land.
G. An action for just compensation based on diminution in value must be made or forever barred within three years of the effective date of the land use law, or of the first date the reduction of the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess property applies to the owner's parcel, whichever is later.
H. The remedy created by this section is in addition to any other remedy that is provided by the laws and constitution of this state or the United States and is not intended to modify or replace any other remedy.
I. Nothing in this section prohibits this state or any political subdivision of this state from reaching an agreement with a private property owner to waive a claim for diminution in value regarding any proposed action by this state or a political subdivision of this state or action requested by the property owner.
Notes of Decisions
Turner v. City of Flagstaff, 247 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 19× “¶ 7 We hold, and Turner does not dispute, that before a property owner may file suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1134, he must file a notice of claim pursuant to A.”
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 14× “” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 146 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 4× “If Proposition 207 passes, § 12-1134 will have no financial impact on the state general fund unless the legislature enacts a land use law that results in a regulatory taking.”
Fid. Nat'l Title Co. v. Town of Marana, 204 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “, and specifically A.R.S. § 12-1134) resulting from changes in the land use laws that apply to the Rezoning Area as a result of the Town’s adoption of this Ordinance.”
League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 146 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 4× “¶ 26 Moreover, on this limited record we cannot say whether Proposition 207 violates Article 9, Section 23 because the initiative may not require "a mandatory expenditure of state revenues," the trigger for application of the Revenue Source Rule.”
Knight v. Hogue (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 4× “¶26 Knight also contends the court erred because she could plead an A.R.S. § 12-1134 claim, which she contends is not time-barred under A.”
O'Neal (D. Ariz. 2025).
· cites it 3× “3 Plaintiff cites A.R.S. § 12-1134 (Doc. 35 ¶ 57), which “provides that an owner is 4 entitled to just compensation from a political subdivision of the state for diminution in 5 value of private real property if an existing right to use that property is reduced by a land- 6 use…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(A) — 4 cases
Turner v. City of Flagstaff, 247 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 7 We hold, and Turner does not dispute, that before a property owner may file suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1134, he must file a notice of claim pursuant to A.”
League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 146 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2006).
“If Proposition 207 passes, § 12-1134 will have no financial impact on the state general fund unless the legislature enacts a land use law that results in a regulatory taking.”
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
League of Arizona Cities & Towns v. Brewer, 146 P.3d 58 (Ariz. 2006).
“¶ 26 Moreover, on this limited record we cannot say whether Proposition 207 violates Article 9, Section 23 because the initiative may not require "a mandatory expenditure of state revenues," the trigger for application of the Revenue Source Rule.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(B)(1) — 1 case
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(B)(7) — 1 case
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(C) — 1 case
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(E) — 2 cases
Turner v. City of Flagstaff, 247 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 7 We hold, and Turner does not dispute, that before a property owner may file suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1134, he must file a notice of claim pursuant to A.”
Sedona Grand, LLC v. City of Sedona, 270 P.3d 864 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“” A.R.S. § 12-1134(A). ¶ 10 Sedona Grand argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City because it failed to hold the City to its burden of proof when it applied the public health and safety exemption under § 12-1134(B)(1).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1134(G) — 1 case
Turner v. City of Flagstaff, 247 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 7 We hold, and Turner does not dispute, that before a property owner may file suit pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1134, he must file a notice of claim pursuant to A.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.