Can a city or county refuse to apply Arizona's charter-school zoning protections to a charter school that leases its building instead of owning it?

Plain-English summary

Senator Kimberly Yee asked the AG to address a position taken by at least one Arizona municipality: that A.R.S. § 15-189.01's protection for charter schools applies only to charter schools whose property is owned by a government entity. The municipality reasoned that if the underlying property owner is subject to zoning rules, the charter school lessee should be too.

AG Brnovich rejected that reading. The statute classifies charter schools as district schools for zoning, and district schools are political subdivisions exempt from municipal zoning. Nothing in § 15-189.01 distinguishes between owned and leased premises. Reading in such a distinction would defeat the legislative purpose, since district schools rarely operate from leased space and charter schools frequently do. A city cannot impose any zoning regulation on a charter school in leased space that it could not impose on a district school.

The opinion preserved one narrow carve-out the legislature wrote into the statute: counties and municipalities may still adopt zoning rules that prohibit charter schools from operating on parcels less than one acre located in single-family residence zoning districts. That exception applies regardless of ownership.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2015. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

A.R.S. § 15-189.01 was added in 1996 and substantially amended in 2009. The 2009 amendments inserted the operative language: counties and municipalities "shall allow a charter school to be established and operate at a location or in a facility for which the zoning regulations of the county or municipality cannot legally prohibit schools operated by school districts." The amendments also barred enforcement of any "ordinance, procedure or process against a charter school that cannot be legally enforced against a school district."

The legal foundation for treating charter schools like district schools rests on Arizona's intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10 v. Harte (1981) holds that school districts are political subdivisions of the state, and City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe (1962) holds that political subdivisions are exempt from the regulations of other political subdivisions. The 2009 amendments effectively extended that immunity to charter schools.

The opinion notes two areas where charter schools and district schools alike remain subject to municipal control: state fire code regulations apply to both (A.R.S. § 34-461), and a narrow zoning carve-out allows local prohibitions on charter schools operating on under-one-acre parcels in single-family residential zones.

Common questions

Q: Can my city require my leased-facility charter school to apply for a special use permit?
A: At the time of this opinion, only if the city would also require a special use permit for a district school in the same circumstances. Cities cannot impose extra requirements on charter schools that they could not impose on district schools, regardless of ownership status.

Q: Does the zoning protection apply to fire code compliance?
A: No. Footnote 1 of the opinion confirms that fire code regulations under A.R.S. § 34-461 apply to school districts, and by extension to charter schools.

Q: What about the small-parcel exception?
A: Cities and counties may prohibit a charter school from operating on a parcel that is less than one acre and is located within a single-family residential zoning district. That exception is in the statute itself.

Q: Does this mean a charter school can simply ignore municipal zoning?
A: Not exactly. The charter school is subject to the same zoning rules as a district school. Where district schools must comply, charter schools must comply. Where district schools are exempt, charter schools are exempt.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• A.R.S. § 15-189.01 (charter school zoning treatment)
• A.R.S. § 34-461 (state fire code)

Cases:

• Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10 v. Harte, 128 Ariz. 233 (1981)
• City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe, 90 Ariz. 393 (1962)

Earlier AG opinions:

• Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I83-052 (school district zoning immunity)
• Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I86-033 (fire code application)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i15-001-r14-017
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I15-001.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Kimberly Yee

Arizona State Senator

Legislative District 20

Senate Education Committee Chair

Questions Presented

You have asked whether a county or municipality can prohibit a charter school that leases a facility from availing itself of the zoning relief provided by A.R.S. § 15-189.01.

Summary Answer

No, a county or municipality cannot prohibit a charter school that leases a facility from availing itself of the zoning relief that A.R.S. § 15-189.01 provides.

Background

The Arizona Legislature added A.R.S § 15-189.01 to the charter school statutes in 1996. 1996 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 356, § 3. This provision classified charter schools as public schools for purposes of assessing zoning fees, site plan fees and development fees. A.R.S. § 15-189.01(A). The section also provided that "[n]o political subdivision of the state may enact or interpret any law, rule or ordinance in a manner that conflicts with subsection A." A.R.S. § 15-189.01(B). In 2009, the Legislature amended A.R.S. § 15-189.01 to clarify that charter schools should be treated as district schools with respect to zoning regulations. 2009 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 98, § 1. Specifically, the Legislature added the following language:

Municipalities and counties shall allow a charter school to be established and operate at a location or in a facility for which the zoning regulations of the county or municipality cannot legally prohibit schools operated by school districts, except that a county or municipality may adopt zoning regulations that prohibit a charter school from operating on property that is less than an acre in size and that is located within an existing single family residence zoning district.

A.R.S. § 15-189.01(A). The Legislature further clarified that charter schools should be treated like district schools in terms of zoning, stating that:

[a] charter school is subject to the same level of oversight and the same rules, hearing requirements, application requirements, ordinances, limitations and other requirements, if any, that would be applied to and enforced against a school that is operated by a school district. A municipality or county shall not enforce, or attempt to enforce, any ordinance, procedure or process against a charter school that cannot be legally enforced against a school district.

A.R.S. § 15-189.01(B). The only exceptions require municipalities to adopt procedures that expedite hearing and administrative reviews involving charter schools (A.R.S. § 15-189.01(D)) and to establish that charter schools are subject to applicable building codes (A.R.S. § 15-189.01(C)).

When this Office requested additional information, you explained that at least one municipality has indicated that charter schools operating in leased premises could not avail themselves of this statute unless the property's owner was also a governmental entity and was thus exempt from municipal zoning requirements. Stated otherwise, the municipality indicated that if the property's owner was subject to zoning requirements, the charter school lessee would likewise be subject to zoning requirements.

Analysis

This Office has previously opined that when a school district uses a building or property for a public school, the school district is not subject to any local zoning laws of the municipality in which the school building is located.(1) Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I83-052. More specifically, the Opinion noted that school districts are political subdivisions of this State (Amphitheater Unified School District No. 10 v. Harte, 128 Ariz. 233, 234, 624 P.2d 1281, 1282 (1981)) and that political subdivisions are exempt from the regulations of other political subdivisions (City of Scottsdale v. Municipal Court of Tempe, 90 Ariz. 393, 368 P.2d 637 (1962)). Thus, if a municipality treats a charter school as it treats a district school for the purposes of zoning, the charter school should be exempt from the municipality's zoning regulations.

Arizona Revised Statute § 15-189.01 evinces a clear intent to ensure that municipalities do not impose zoning regulations on charter schools except to the extent they could do so on district schools. The language of A.R.S. § 15-189.01 (A) is clear on that point. The statute continues, "[a] municipality or county shall not enforce, or attempt to enforce, any ordinance, procedure or process against a charter school that cannot be legally enforced against a school district." A.R.S. §15-189.01(B). The statute's legislative history is consistent with this language. See HB 2099 Fact Sheet, 49th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Ariz. 2009) ("HB 2099 classifies charter schools as public schools for the purposes of zoning in municipalities and counties.")

There is no indication that this exemption depends on whether the political subdivision leases, rather than owns, the property. The statute does not distinguish between leased and owned premises. Furthermore, nothing in the legislative history indicates that the legislature intended to allow municipalities to treat schools that operate in leased premises differently than schools that operate in owned premises.(2)

Conclusion

A municipality cannot impose any zoning restriction on a charter school that leases its property that it could not impose on a district school or on a charter school that owns its property.

Mark Brnovich

Attorney General

School districts are subject to state fire code regulations. A.R.S. § 34-461; also Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I86-033.

Practically speaking, permitting such a distinction would only affect charter schools, because district schools rarely operate in leased premises.