Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203 (2026)

Criteria And Guidelines For Zoning Regulations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING AND ZONING

Part 2. County Zoning

Criteria And Guidelines For Zoning Regulations

76-2-203. Criteria and guidelines for zoning regulations. (1) Zoning regulations must be:

(a) made in accordance with the growth policy; and

(b) designed to:

(i) secure safety from fire and other dangers;

(ii) promote public health, public safety, and general welfare; and

(iii) facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements.

(2) In the adoption of zoning regulations, the board of county commissioners shall consider:

(a) reasonable provision of adequate light and air;

(b) the effect on motorized and nonmotorized transportation systems;

(c) compatible urban growth in the vicinity of cities and towns that at a minimum must include the areas around municipalities;

(d) the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses; and

(e) conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.

(3) Zoning regulations must, as nearly as possible, be made compatible with the zoning ordinances of nearby municipalities.

(4) Zoning regulations may not include a requirement to:

(a) pay a fee for the purpose of providing housing for specified income levels or at specified sale prices; or

(b) dedicate real property for the purpose of providing housing for specified income levels or at specified sale prices.

(5) A dedication of real property as prohibited in subsection (4)(b) includes a payment or other contribution to a local housing authority or the reservation of real property for future development of housing for specified income levels or specified sale prices.

History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 246, L. 1963; R.C.M. 1947, 16-4704; amd. Sec. 15, Ch. 582, L. 1999; amd. Sec. 3, Ch. 87, L. 2003; amd. Sec. 7, Ch. 446, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 4, Ch. 249, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2016 MT 325 (Mont. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2016 MT 325 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 30× “The Text Report also addressed the statutory considerations required by § 76-2-203, MCA, including fire dangers; promotion of health, public safety, and general welfare; facilitating adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public…”

North 93 Neighbors, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2006 MT 132 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 14× “040 of the Zoning Regulations mirror the criteria for considering a zoning amendment from § 76-2-203, MCA. ¶ 42 The Board must make zoning amendments in accordance with the 12 statutory and Zoning Regulation criteria.”

Williams v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2013 MT 243 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 11× “Section 76-2-203, MCA. The county and city-county planning boards serve an advisory role to the board of commissioners by recommending boundaries and appropriate regulations for the zoning district.”

Montana Wildlife Fed'n v. Sager, 620 P.2d 1189 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 17× “The major question presented by this appeal is whether the Board of County Commissioners may adopt a planning and zoning-district under Part 1, Chapter 2, Title 76, MCA (section 76-2-101 through -112, MCA) before a comprehensive development plan for the jurisdictional area has…”

Ash Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson Cnty., 943 P.2d 85 (Mont. 1997). · cites it 12× “Section 76-2-203, MCA. Part 2 zoning districts and regulations may be adopted only after specific statutory procedures are met, including notice ofand a public hearing onboth the proposed zoning district boundaries and the zoning regulations proposed for the district.”

Little v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 631 P.2d 1282 (Mont. 1981). · cites it 7× “The master plan would have little meaning unless the planning board had a significant and continuing role in the processes which finally lead to a decision by the county commissioners. The significance of the planning board’s role can be better understood in light of the…”

Dover Ranch v. Cnty. of Yellowstone, 609 P.2d 711 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 9× “At the hearing, a member of the city-county planning board staff read the legal advertising and presented slides of the area, and a member of the zoning commission read the criteria set forth in section 76-2-203, MCA. General-Kimble and its consulting engineer gave evidence in…”

Englin v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2002 MT 115 (Mont. 2002). · cites it 5× “The findings stated that the zone change was designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan, it “should not create any more congestion in the area than what is already found until improvements of Ethelyn Avenue are made,” it “possibly may not promote health and general…”

Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 2011 MT 91 (Mont. 2011). · cites it 2× “Similarly, §76-2-203, MCA (applicable to counties) and §76-2-304, MCA (applicable to cities) provided that zoning regulations must be made “in accordance with” the growth policy.”

Citizen Advocates for a Livable Missoula, Inc. v. City Council, 2006 MT 47 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 2× “2 It should be noted that Little involved the interplay between § 76-1-605, MCA, and § 76-2-203, MCA (comity zoning), and not between § 76-1-605, MCA, and § 76-2-304, MCA (municipal zoning), as here.”

Lake Cnty. First v. Polson City Council, 2009 MT 322 (Mont. 2009). · cites it 2× “3 The zoning issues in North 93 Neighbors were governed by §76-2-203, MCA, the county zoning statute.”

Shults v. Liberty Cove, Inc., 2006 MT 247 (Mont. 2006). · cites it 2× “Having been advised that condominiums could be built without subdivision review under an exemption found at § 76-2-203, MCA, Liberty Cove did not appeal the denial of the subdivision.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(1) — 1 case

Englin v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2002 MT 115 (Mont. 2002). “The findings stated that the zone change was designed in accordance with the comprehensive plan, it “should not create any more congestion in the area than what is already found until improvements of Ethelyn Avenue are made,” it “possibly may not promote health and general…”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(1)(a) — 2 cases

Citizens for a Better Flathead v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2016 MT 325 (Mont. 2016). “The Text Report also addressed the statutory considerations required by § 76-2-203, MCA, including fire dangers; promotion of health, public safety, and general welfare; facilitating adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks, and other public…”

Treasure Cnty. v. Edlund, 2026 MT 134 (Mont. 2026).

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(2) — 2 cases

Williams v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2013 MT 243 (Mont. 2013). “Section 76-2-203, MCA. The county and city-county planning boards serve an advisory role to the board of commissioners by recommending boundaries and appropriate regulations for the zoning district.”

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(2)(c) — 1 case

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(3) — 1 case

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(l)(a) — 1 case

— Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-203(l)(b) — 1 case

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.