Overview
§10-20-102 (for municipalities) and §17-79-102 (for counties) of Utah State Code (as amended) defines a conditional use as a land use that, because of the unique characteristics or potential detrimental impact of the land use on the municipality or county, surrounding neighbors, or adjacent land uses, may not be compatible in some areas or may be compatible only if certain conditions are required that mitigate or eliminate the detrimental impacts.
The key idea is not that the use is inherently “bad” or prohibited, but that it may create effects (i.e., traffic, noise, safety concerns, or compatibility issues, etc.) with surrounding development that require additional oversight before approval.
In recent years, municipalities and counties alike have been grappling with the consequences of the requirements enacted by the Utah State Legislature back in 2021, which now requires them to approve a conditional use if reasonable conditions are proposed, or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects.
By now, most jurisdictions know their hands are tied when it comes to approving conditional uses (absent a determination that reasonable conditions cannot mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects), but many haven’t made the jump or don’t even know where to start when it comes to updating their land use ordinances in order to better comply with the directive.
First, there is often a gap between older ordinances and the newer legal standard. Many zoning codes or land use regulations still contain broad language suggesting wide discretion to approve or deny conditional uses, without clearly defining measurable impacts or enforceable mitigation standards.
Second, land use authorities sometimes struggle with the practical boundary between “reasonable mitigation” and “fundamental incompatibility.” The statute pushes jurisdictions toward approval with conditions whenever possible, but it does not eliminate the need to determine when impacts truly cannot be reasonably mitigated.
Third, inconsistent findings and uneven application of conditions can create legal vulnerability. As conditional use decisions are now more tightly constrained, they must be carefully grounded in the record, supported by evidence, and tied directly to adopted standards.
Content Contributors: Jones and DeMille Engineering, Inc, Hansen Planning Group, LLC / Rural Community Consultants, Southern Utah University – Master Of Public Administration (MPA) Program
Special Note: This material was developed by civiclinQ for the Land Use Academy of Utah (LUAU). Funding for the development of this material was provided by through the Land Use Training Fund, which is administered by the Office of the Property Rights Ombudsman , utilizing a portion of the 1% surcharge on all building permits in the State of Utah.
The role of this organization in administering funding is primarily administrative and should not be viewed as legal advice. Always consult your legal representative when addressing land use activities.
Use the ‘Materials’ tab above to view related course materials, including printable pass-along card and PDF version of this online course.
