Arizona SB 1307 and the Land Use Challenge of Integrating Advanced Air Mobility

Arizona has taken an early step into Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) with the enactment of SB 1307. Rather than preempting local authority or prescribing where and how AAM facilities must be located, the legislation takes a measured approach. It signals that AAM is transitioning from concept to reality and that local governments should begin addressing how this emerging use will be integrated through land use regulation.

That signal matters. Federal aviation policy, certification standards, and safety frameworks continue to evolve quickly, while local zoning and land use codes necessarily operate at a broader planning and policy level. Many communities are already engaging with AAM through high level discussions about appropriate siting, equity, and long term compatibility, including questions about avoiding disproportionate impacts on lower income or historically overburdened areas. At the same time, many jurisdictions have not yet developed operational zoning standards for siting, operating, or expanding AAM facilities. SB 1307 does not attempt to resolve those questions. Instead, it acknowledges the gap and leaves cities and counties responsible for shaping how AAM fits into the built environment.

For operators, this gap creates uncertainty. For local governments, it creates pressure to respond without established tools. SB 1307 invites both sides to begin translating policy level discussions into workable land use frameworks before projects arrive faster than regulatory systems can adapt.

What SB 1307 Does and What It Does Not Do

SB 1307 establishes statutory definitions for advanced air mobility, including electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and vertiports, and directs the Arizona Department of Transportation to incorporate AAM and related infrastructure into the statewide aviation plan. In doing so, it positions the State as a planning and coordination resource for local governments.

SB 1307 does not preempt local zoning authority. It does not mandate approval of vertiports, override municipal land use codes, or replace local siting decisions with a statewide regime. That restraint appears intentional. The Legislature acknowledged the emergence of AAM while leaving land use integration with cities and counties.

The message is careful but clear. AAM is no longer theoretical, and local governments should not ignore it. At the same time, they retain responsibility for determining how and where AAM facilities are appropriate within their communities.

AAM as a Distinct Land Use

Advanced air mobility is often framed as an aviation or transportation issue. From a land use perspective, however, it presents a distinct challenge.

Unlike traditional airports or heliports, AAM is distributed. Its impacts are not limited to a single runway or pad. Facilities may range from very small installations, such as limited drone or delivery operations, to higher intensity vertiports serving passenger or cargo uses. Some facilities may have minimal physical footprints but still generate operational impacts. Others may require charging infrastructure, lighting, staging areas, or expanded utility capacity.

In many cases, frequency, intensity, and duration of operations may be as important as location. This makes AAM difficult to regulate using legacy zoning tools. Many municipal codes address aviation through narrow heliport provisions or highly discretionary conditional use permits. Those approaches were developed for infrequent or emergency oriented operations, not for a scalable mobility system that may operate daily and appear in a variety of settings.

For operators, the absence of clear land use standards can be as problematic as overregulation. When codes do not anticipate AAM uses, projects are often forced into discretionary processes that vary widely by jurisdiction. That uncertainty complicates site selection, financing, and long term planning.

A Conceptual Framework Focused on Intensity and Spacing

One way to approach AAM land use regulation is by drawing on how local governments have addressed other unfamiliar or sensitive uses. Group home regulations offer a useful conceptual analogy.

Group homes are regulated using familiar land use tools that focus on scale and impacts. Zoning codes commonly distinguish between very small group home facilities and larger ones, treat smaller facilities as residential uses, and apply additional requirements as size and intensity increase. Where appropriate, jurisdictions use objective spacing or separation standards to address clustering concerns and scale review requirements based on measurable impacts. Some facilities are permitted through streamlined processes if they meet defined thresholds, while others require additional review as intensity increases. The analogy is conceptual rather than literal, but it highlights an important regulatory principle.

A similar approach could be applied to AAM. Rather than attempting to predict technological endpoints, which are likely to evolve quickly, local codes could focus on observable land use characteristics such as:

• Frequency of operations 
• Hours of activity
• Infrastructure footprint
• Lighting and visibility
• Proximity to sensitive land uses
• Spacing or separation criteria for lower intensity facilities
• Clear thresholds that trigger additional review

Under this type of framework, smaller and lower intensity facilities could move through streamlined processes if they meet defined performance and spacing standards. Higher frequency hubs or cargo oriented operations would receive more detailed review. Expansion would not be prohibited, but would be intentional, transparent, and tied to objective criteria.

For operators, tiered frameworks that rely on objective, performance based standards provide more than community acceptance. They reduce entitlement risk, support repeatable deployment models, and create clearer pathways for scaling operations across jurisdictions.

Flexibility With Predictability

The central challenge is balance. AAM will evolve, and operational data and industry standards will develop faster than municipal code amendments. A regulatory framework that is too rigid risks becoming obsolete quickly.

At the same time, excessive discretion creates its own problems. Unstructured review introduces uncertainty, politicizes land use decisions, and increases legal and financial risk. Communities need clear expectations, and operators need predictable processes.

A tiered and performance based regulatory approach offers a potential structure for this land use. It allows innovation to proceed within defined parameters while preserving local control and ensuring compatibility with surrounding uses. It also creates space for continued industry input and adaptive learning without ceding land use judgment.

Looking Ahead

SB 1307 does not answer all of the land use questions surrounding advanced air mobility, and it does not attempt to. Instead, it creates space for thoughtful, locally grounded approaches that recognize both the promise and the complexity of this emerging sector.

For Arizona cities, the opportunity is not to regulate AAM aggressively or prematurely. It is to begin shaping frameworks that can absorb change without constant reinvention. For operators, the opportunity lies in engaging early with communities and helping inform standards that are practical, scalable, and predictable.

The goal is not to predict the future of aviation. The goal is to manage land use impacts in a way that is fair, flexible, and defensible for both communities and operators. As with other transformative technologies, the most successful regulatory models are likely to focus less on novelty and more on fundamentals such as intensity, compatibility, and impact.

In that sense, advanced air mobility may be new, but the land use principles needed to integrate it are well established.

For operators and site sponsors, understanding how AAM fits within local land use systems will be important to reduce entitlement risk and support scalable deployment. Early coordination with local governments can help align expectations before projects move forward. To discuss the issues raised in this alert, please contact Heidi Short or your usual Womble Bond Dickinson contact.