79. Subdivision
 
    1. Valuation/Subdivision: Valuation need not be based on what a willing purchaser will pay for the whole at the time of the taking, where the land is undeveloped and subdivision is imaginary or hypothetical, despite cases to the contrary in other jurisdictions.  Tacchino v. State ex rel. Dep't Hwys., 89 Nev. 150, 153, 508 P.2d 1212 (1973) (#50)
 
    2. Valuation/Subdivision: The possibility of subdivision is a factor a well-informed buyer would use in arriving at a price he would pay for the land. Id. at 153 (#50)
 
    3. Valuation/Subdivision: "The potential income to be derived from the sale of subdivided lots, properly discounted to show present value, is a factor and relevant to a determination of market value, since sophisticated investors make decisions on the basis of income capitalization." Id. at 154 (#50)
 
    4. Valuation/Subdivision (Dissent): Industrial property is not conducive to being subdivided into equal lots because of the varying requirements of prospective industrial purchasers, as admitted in the evidence. (#50)
 
    5. Valuation/Subdivision (Dissent): "[W]here the entire parcel of land is taken as a unit...the proper measure of compensation is what a willing purchaser would be willing to pay for the parcel at the time of the taking, in its then condition and not what a number of purchasers might, in the future, be induced to pay for the land as divided into lots." Id. at 155. [This is not inconsistent with the majority holding. The possibility of subdivision is a proper element, but it would be improper to suggest that the value of the land is the value of the accumulated subdivisions, sold "retail". The dissenters noted there was no dispute below as to adaptability of the land to industrial subdivision, and the evidence was merely cumulative "and could create substantial danger of undue prejudice." (c.g.)] (#50)