Canyon Del Rio Investors, L.L.C. v. City of Flagstaff, 227 Ariz. 336

CDR sued the City of Flagstaff for declaratory judgment and damages over a zoning dispute related to the 1984 Plan, the 1991 Code, and later development plans.
The trial court dismissed as time-barred under A.R.S. § 12-821; CDR did not exhaust administrative remedies for its claims.
The court held damage claims do not accrue until administrative remedies are exhausted, and declaratory judgments may be brought earlier but limitations run only after exhaustion.
Exhaustion is generally required for damages but not for a standalone declaratory judgment challenging the validity of zoning, and the court addressed as-applied challenges to zoning only after final administrative action.
CDR's misrepresentation claim failed for lack of timely notice under A.R.S. § 12-821.01; the other damages and due-process theories were addressed on ripeness and exhaustion grounds.
The court remanded and vacated dismissal for some declaratory claims, affirmed others, and left the misrepresentation claim barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When do limitations begin for declaratory judgments in zoning disputes?	CDR contends DJ claims can ripen when controversy arises, before damages accrue.	City contends limitations begin when the cause accrues for related claims.	DJ claims not time-barred until related damage claims exhausted.
Do damage claims require exhaustion of administrative remedies before accrual?	Damages may accrue independently of exhaustion; DJ relief can occur earlier.	Damages accrue only after final administrative action; exhaustion governs accrual.	Damage claims do not accrue until final administrative decision; exhaustion required for ripeness.
Is exhaustion required for § 1983 and due-process challenges to zoning?	Exhaustion not strictly required for § 1983 but ripe only after final action.	Administrative remedies must be exhausted to obtain judicial review.	§ 1983 claims not barred by exhaustion, but as-applied zoning challenges require final agency action to be ripe.
Did CDR's misrepresentation claim accrue and was a notice of claim timely filed?	Accrual occurred in 2007 when ordinance issue surfaced; notice sufficiency contested.	Notice under A.R.S. § 12-821.01 required; 2007 letter did not address misrepresentation claim.	Misrepresentation claim barred for failure to file timely notice under § 12-821.01.

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Evans, 130 Ariz. 333 (App. 1981) (declaratory relief accrual requires a breach or injury to start limitations.)
La Canada Hills Ltd. P'ship v. Kite, 217 Ariz. 126 (App. 2007) (treats declaratory judgments within the analogous limitations period as timely.)
Yollin v. City of Glendale, 219 Ariz. 24 (App. 2008) (notice of claim requirements and public records in summary judgment context.)
Haab v. Maricopa County, 219 Ariz. 9 (App. 2008) (requirement to amend or timely respond regarding notices of claim; exhaustion context.)
Falcon ex rel. Sandoval v. Maricopa County, 213 Ariz. 525 (¶ 2006) (strict compliance with notice-of-claim statute, not mere actual notice.)
Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (finality requirement for administrative decisions under § 1983.)
Morton v. Pac. Constr. Co., 36 Ariz. 97 (1929) (declaratory judgments cannot preempt breach accrual for limitations.)