Wash. Rev. Code » Title 58 · Chapter 58.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.170 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) When the legislative body of the city, town, or county, or such other agency as authorized by RCW 58.17.100, finds that the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and that said subdivision meets the requirements of this chapter, other applicable state laws, and any local ordinances adopted under this chapter which were in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval, it shall suitably inscribe and execute its written approval on the face of the plat. The original of said final plat shall be filed for record with the county auditor. One reproducible copy shall be furnished to the city, town, or county engineer. One paper copy shall be filed with the county assessor. Paper copies shall be provided to such other agencies as may be required by ordinance.
(2)(a) Except as provided by (b) of this subsection, any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of seven years from the date of filing if the date of filing is on or before December 31, 2014, and for a period of five years from the date of filing if the date of filing is on or after January 1, 2015.
(b) Any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any change in zoning laws for a period of ten years from the date of filing if the project is not subject to requirements adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW and the date of filing is on or before December 31, 2007.
(3)(a) Except as provided by (b) of this subsection, a subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150 (1) and (3) for a period of seven years after final plat approval if the date of final plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014, and for a period of five years after final plat approval if the date of final plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015, unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision.
(b) A subdivision shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat, and the statutes, ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of approval under RCW 58.17.150 (1) and (3) for a period of ten years after final plat approval if the project is not subject to requirements adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW and the date of final plat approval is on or before December 31, 2007, unless the legislative body finds that a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety in the subdivision.
[ 2017 c 161 s 2; 2013 c 16 s 2; 2012 c 92 s 2; 2010 c 79 s 2; 1981 c 293 s 10; 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 17.]

Notes:

Severability—1981 c 293: See note following RCW 58.17.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane, 954 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mission Springs Inc. v. City of Spokane, 954 P.2d 250 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 17× “" RCW 58.17.170. No such finding, however, was ever made.”
Mission Springs, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 134 Wash. 2d 947 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 17× “” RCW 58.17.170. No such finding, however, was ever made.”
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 943 P.2d 1378 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 8× “The County argues that the Friends case involved a formal subdivision whereas the present case involves a short subdivision, and that a formal subdivision has vested rights under RCW 58.17.170 (for five years) instead of under RCW 58.”
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 133 Wash. 2d 269 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 8× “The County argues that the Friends case involved a formal subdivision whereas the present case involves a short subdivision, and that a formal subdivision has vested rights under RCW 58.17.170 (for five years) instead of under RCW 58.”
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 2× “Developments or uses permitted outright; (B) Development or uses permitted after administrative review and approval of a site plan by the Planning Department; and (C) Development or uses permitted after review and approval of a site plan by the Examiner after at least one public…”
Knight v. City of Yelm, 267 P.3d 973 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “finds that the subdivision proposed for final plat approval conforms to all terms of the preliminary plat approval, and that said subdivision meets the requirements of this chapter, other applicable state laws, and any local ordinances adopted under this chapter .”
Jones v. Town of Hunts Point, 272 P.3d 853 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 58.17.170 states that a subdivision “shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final plat.”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 649 P.2d 103 (Wash. 1982). “If the County were to grant the plat application based upon factors relevant during the statutory time period, the provisions of RCW 58.17.170 would become operative. That statute provides, "Any lots in a final plat filed for record shall be a valid land use notwithstanding any…”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 627 P.2d 988 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.170. Facts of Case In May 1977, Norco Construction, Inc.”
Halverson v. City of Bellevue, 704 P.2d 1232 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.170. 2 The City and Morgan contend that the failure to obtain Halverson's signature did not justify setting aside the entire *461 plat, since Halverson owned such a small portion of the proposed subdivision.”
Lands Council v. Washington State Parks & Rec. Comm'n, 309 P.3d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “See RCW 58.17.170. The conditional use approval of a shopping center may be followed by grading permits, critical area permits, and construction permits.”
Tekoa Constr., Inc. v. City of Seattle, 781 P.2d 1324 (Wash. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 58.17.170. However, after the 5-year immunity period has run, the owners of contiguous lots could be required to comply with new zoning regulations.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.170(3)(a) — 1 case
Sunrise Ridge The Highlands At Somerset Hill Homeowners Assoc, App V City Of Tumwater, Resps. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.170(3)(b) — 1 case
Richard Mansor & Toni Mansor v. Jabco, Inc. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
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.