Utah Supreme Court
2003 UT 7, 67 P.3d 466
The Vested Rights Rule is not based on constitutional or property rights, but estoppel–that is, detrimental reliance on a local zoning ordinance. Mere adherence to formal rules does not entitle a property owner to approval of a development application.
Absent invidious discrimination, a conventional planning dispute is a matter primarily of concern to the state and does not implicate the US Constitution. In order to state a due process claim, a party must show a property or liberty interest which warrants due process protection. A party must have more than a unilateral expectation of a right, instead, the party must have a legitimate claim of entitlement.
A showing of “uneven” enforcement of a law is not sufficient to justify an equal protection claim. What is required is a showing of totally illegitimate animus toward the plaintiff by the defendant.
Full Text of Patterson v. American Fork
