For each case, here's a link to the whole case, then a look at how the case applies to Cochise County P&Z.  These are SUMMARIES of complex cases; you should follow the link to the whole cases and read them for yourself.

Dolan
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U10365

says that P&Z may not require a person to give up a constitutional right in exchange for a permit, where the right has little or no relationship to the permit.  The necessary connection required by the Fifth Amendment is "rough proportionality;" precise equivalence isn't required, but there must be an individualized determination that the right given up is related in nature and extent to the permit obtained.

Nollan
http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/825/case.html

says that if P&Z can legitimately forbid a particular land use, then P&Z can condition the use upon the owner's concession of some property rights, IF the concession furthers the same governmental purpose that allows entirely prohibiting the use.

Lucas
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/lucas.html

says that P&Z regulation that deprives land of all economically beneficial use generally constitutes "taking the land," and requires the county to pay just compensation to the owner.

First English
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0304_ZO.html

says that if the county must pay just compensation to a property owner, the compensation must start from the time the property was taken.

Palazzolo
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-2047

says that a suit to challenge a P&Z decision can be filed only if the decision is final, but also that even if you took property after a P&Z decision became final, you can still challenge if the decision was extreme and unreasonable.

Tahoe
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-1167

says that not every prevention of an owner's use of property constitutes a taking which requires compensation; for instance, ordinary delays during processing permits do not constitute such a taking.

Obviously, if you "go to the mattresses" on any of these points, you must have an attorney.  And fine points will come up in applying the cases; for instance, if P&Z unreasonably refused to issue a permit for a long time, during which property sustained weather damage, then a court might find P&Z's delay to be a "taking of property" for which the county must compensate an owner.  If P&Z was unreasonable and frivolous during a suit, the county might also have to pay the citizen's legal fees.