40. Reliance. [See also Equitable estoppel]
 
    a. "Respondent properly calls attention to the situation of petitioner's neighbors who have purchased and built homes in this district in their reliance on the continued effectiveness of the ordinance and the land use plan and the classifications therein provided...." [upholds denial of bldg. permit which would have allowed conversion to duplex not permitted in zone]
State v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 640, 224 P.2d 309 (1950). No. 2.
 
    b. "Too often a property owner will, after careful consideration, select a site and build in conformity with, and reliance upon, the zoning ordinance then in effect, only to face time and again attempts by others to change the zoning plan and character of the neighborhood through the issuance of use permits and the granting of variances to the zoning ordinance."
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250, 257, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.

      c. "Aside from the individual property owner's interest in relying on the zoning regulation of the area, there is a legitimate public interest involved in density zoning which affects the 'health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community." Id. at 257.
 
    d. "In order for rights in a proposed development project to vest, zoning or use approvals must not be subject to further governmental discretionary action affecting project commencement, and the developer must prove considerable reliance on the approvals granted. See City of Reno v. Nevada First Thrift, 100 Nev. 483, 487, 686 P.2d 231, 233 (1984); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. CMC of Nevada, 99 Nev. 739, 747, 670 P.2d 102, 107 (1983)."
American West Dev. v. City of Henderson, 111 Nev. 804, 807, 898 P.2d 110 (1995). No. 46.
 
    e. "Given the circumstances of this case, we reject the notion that the County's [mistaken] issuance of the business license and the health permit estops it from enforcing its zoning regulations against Mad Dogs [despite significant expenditures in reliance]. Where a public right and the protection of the public are involved, the doctrine of estoppel is to be invoked only in rare and unusual circumstances, and should not apply where it would defeat a policy adopted to protect the public." (citations omitted) In this case, it would be unfair and inequitable to apply estoppel to protect Mad Dogs, because to do so could harm nearby residents who were powerless to prevent the County's illegal issuance of the permits to Mad Dogs. On the other hand, Mad Dogs had the opportunity to inform itself of the County's zoning regulations and the need to obtain a conditional use permit."
Board of Co. Comm'rs v. C.A.G. Inc., 98 Nev. 497, 500, 654 P.2d 531 (1982). No. 27.