Ark. Code Ann. » Title 14 Chapter 56
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (2020)

Territorial jurisdiction

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
      1. The territorial jurisdiction of the governing body of a municipality for the purpose of this subchapter shall not exceed the limits stated under this subsection.
      2. If the territorial limits of two (2) or more municipalities conflict, the limits of their respective territorial jurisdictions shall be a line equidistant between them, or as agreed on by the respective municipalities.
    2. In addition to the powers under this subchapter, cities now having eight thousand (8,000) population or more shall have the authority to administer and enforce planning ordinances outside their corporate limits as follows:
      1. For cities of eight thousand (8,000) to sixty thousand (60,000) population, the jurisdictional area will be one (1) mile beyond the corporate limits;
      2. For cities of sixty thousand (60,000) to one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) population, the jurisdictional area will be two (2) miles beyond the corporate limits; and
        1. For cities of one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) population and greater, the jurisdictional area will be three (3) miles beyond the corporate limits.
        2. Upon July 3, 1989, no city with a population in excess of one hundred fifty thousand (150,000) persons shall exercise any zoning authority outside the boundaries of the county wherein it is located without the approval of the quorum court of the county wherein the city is not located and the approval of the governing bodies of all other cities having zoning authority over the area.
    3. Cities having a population of eight thousand (8,000) persons or less:
      1. Shall have a jurisdictional area that does not exceed one (1) mile beyond the corporate limits; and
      2. Shall not exercise any zoning authority outside the corporate limits.
    4. Cities now having an eight thousand (8,000) population or more and situated on a navigable stream may administer and enforce zoning ordinances outside their corporate limits but may not exceed the territorial limits under subdivision (a)(2) of this section.
    5. The city populations will be based on the most recent federal decennial census.
    1. The planning commission shall designate the area within the territorial jurisdiction for which it will prepare plans, ordinances, and regulations.
    2. A description of the boundaries of the area shall be filed with the city clerk and with the county recorder.

History. Acts 1957, No. 186, §§ 3, 5; 1965, No. 134, § 1; 1965, No. 138, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 19-2827, 19-2829; Acts 1987, No. 56, §§ 1, 4; 1989, No. 94, § 1; 2011, No. 280, § 3; 2013, No. 1053, § 1.

Amendments. The 2011 amendment substituted “a city of the first class, a city of the second class, or an incorporated town” for “the city having a planning commission” in (a)(1)(A); deleted “of the first or second class” following “municipalities” in (a)(1)(B); and, in (a)(2)(A), added “In addition to the powers under this subchapter” and deleted “planning and” following “enforce.”

The 2013 amendment rewrote this section.

Case Notes

In General.

Because the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission acted within its statutory authority under § 15-22-503(e) in approving a water project submitted by a municipality that included a portion of a neighboring city's five-mile extraterritorial planning area, which was not preempted under this section by the neighboring municipality's planning authority in the five-mile area surrounding its city limits, and because the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court affirmed the Commission's order approving the municipality's water development project, as amended, for water plan compliance certification. Ark. Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. City of Bentonville, 351 Ark. 289, 92 S.W.3d 47 (2002).

There was no requirement in subdivision (b)(2) of this section that a map of a planning area be filed; thus, a city met the requirement of filing a “description of the boundaries” of the area by filing a legal description with the county clerk. Potter v. City of Tontitown, 371 Ark. 200, 264 S.W.3d 473 (2007).

Annexation.

Circuit court properly upheld the annexation of four tracts of real property totaling approximately 1,951 acres into the City of Sherwood, Arkansas because the City of Jacksonville's plans for the area were not superior to, and did not defeat, the landowners' right to petition for annexation to another city. City of Jacksonville v. City of Sherwood, 375 Ark. 107, 289 S.W.3d 90 (2008).

Regulation of Land Use.

Delegation of authority to regulate land use on property outside the city limits but within the city's extraterritorial-planning jurisdiction was permitted under this section, but approval of a subdivision application was unlawful due to the city's failure to prove that the necessary documents had been submitted. McLain v. City of Little Rock Planning Comm'n, 2011 Ark. App. 285, 383 S.W.3d 432 (2011).

Cited: National Lumber Co. v. Advance Dev. Corp., 293 Ark. 1, 732 S.W.2d 840 (1987); City of Fort Smith v. Didicom Towers, Inc., 362 Ark. 469, 209 S.W.3d 344 (2005); City of Dover v. City of Russellville, 363 Ark. 458, 215 S.W.3d 623 (2005).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Potter v. City of Tontitown, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Potter v. City of Tontitown, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 10× “Designation of planning jurisdiction We will first address the Potters’ assertion that Tontitown did not properly designate its planning jurisdiction because only a legal description was filed with the Washington County Clerk in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (Repl.…”
City of Dover v. Barton, 29 S.W.3d 698 (Ark. 2000). · cites it 12× “We note that Ark.Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (Supp.1997) granted Russellville the authority to implement its Land Subdivision and Development Code.”
Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Comm'n v. City of Bentonville, 92 S.W.3d 47 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 6× “In the instant case, Bentonville did not provide ASWCC with any plan to annex or otherwise provide water services to the residents who live within its five-mile extraterritorial planning area. The decision by ASWCC did not, as characterized by Bentonville, deny Bentonville any…”
City of Jacksonville v. City of Sherwood, 289 S.W.3d 90 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 7× “lant asserts that (1) the circuit court erred in affirming and approving the annexation of Appellees’ properties into the City of Sherwood by the county court because there was insufficient proof presented to the county court to make a determination of the Vestal criteria; (2)…”
City of Dover v. City of Russellville, 215 S.W.3d 623 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 4× “However, Dover ignores the fact that on June 29, 2004, when the circuit court issued its decision, the proposed construction was a public nuisance as a matter of law pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (a)(2)(A)(i) (Repl.”
City of Fort Smith v. Didicom Towers, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 344 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2× “In August 2002, the City adopted a land use plan and a zoning code covering the real property on which the tower is located, pursuant to its extraterritorial jurisdiction, as provided in Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-56-413 and -416 (Repl.”
City of Greenbrier v. Roberts, 127 S.W.3d 454 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2× “This ordinance, authorized by the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (Repl. 1998), designated new boundary lines for the City’s exercise of territorial jurisdiction over city planning and subdivision development matters.”
McLain v. City of Little Rock Plan. Comm'n, 383 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “2009), as permitting a city’s board of directors to delegate to the planning commission the authority to regulate land use on property outside city limits but within the city’s extraterritorial-planning jurisdiction.”
Fritchie v. Hearne, 2025 Ark. App. 276. · cites it 2× “They contend that, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-56-413 (Supp. 2023), the city of Fayetteville, not Washington County, had jurisdiction to regulate land use in the Ridgemonte Estates neighborhood.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413(a)(l)(A): 1 case
McLain v. City of Little Rock Plan. Comm'n, 383 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “2009), as permitting a city’s board of directors to delegate to the planning commission the authority to regulate land use on property outside city limits but within the city’s extraterritorial-planning jurisdiction.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413(b)(2): 1 case
Potter v. City of Tontitown, 264 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. 2007). “Designation of planning jurisdiction We will first address the Potters’ assertion that Tontitown did not properly designate its planning jurisdiction because only a legal description was filed with the Washington County Clerk in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413 (Repl.…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-413(b)(l): 1 case
McLain v. City of Little Rock Plan. Comm'n, 383 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “2009), as permitting a city’s board of directors to delegate to the planning commission the authority to regulate land use on property outside city limits but within the city’s extraterritorial-planning jurisdiction.”
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.