Urban growth across the United States has steadily increased land use conflicts around airports as metropolitan areas expand and absorb what were once remote airfields.[1] Many airports were originally sited on the edge of urban areas, but over time, residential and commercial developments have encroached into these areas.[2] This often leads to incompatible land use, a situation where residents’ expectations, such as quiet neighborhoods, safety, and stable property values, clash with aviation operations.[3]
A recent example of incompatible land use tensions is unfolding in a lawsuit involving Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (RMMA), located near Superior, Colorado.[4] As surrounding communities have grown, Colorado residents have raised concerns about noise, with particular attention on touch-and-go operations.[5] Another issue involves the lead produced from burning aviation fuel, which can settle in nearby neighborhoods and pose health risks to residents.[6] Together, these conflicts in the RMMA lawsuit illustrate the challenges that arise when airports and urban development intersect, highlighting the need to finding solutions to balance airport needs with community well-being.
Incompatible Land Use
Incompatible land use often raises concerns regarding safety, environmental, or operational hazards.[7] Around airports, certain land uses can interfere with aircraft operations, endanger public safety, or cause excessive noise.[8] For example, placing schools or hospitals too close to an airport can expose people to high noise levels and restrict the airport’s ability to operate efficiently.[9] Planning near airports requires careful consideration to ensure that land use supports aviation activities instead of conflicting with them.
Some of the most frequent incompatible land uses around airports include residential areas, schools, and hospitals due to their vulnerability to aircraft noise and safety risks.[10] High-rise buildings can pose obstacles to flight paths, while large crowds or event venues may increase exposure to accidents in emergencies.[11] Wildlife-attracting land uses, such as wetlands and ponds, can also create safety concerns if located too close to runways, as they increase the risk of wildlife strikes.[12]
By identifying incompatible land uses, planners can mitigate conflicts and create safer, more harmonious communities around airports.[13] However, once these uses are already established near airports, addressing their impacts requires focusing on solutions that balance the needs of the airport and surrounding communities.[14]
Touch-and-Go Operations and Noise Generation
One of the most frequent types of airport land use conflicts centers around noise, particularly from touch-and-go operations.[15] Touch-and-go operations are a common flight training maneuver where an aircraft lands on a runway and immediately takes off again without coming to a full stop.[16] These maneuvers involve repeated takeoffs and landings, often keeping aircraft in tight traffic patterns over the same neighborhoods.[17]
Although touch-and-go operations allow pilots to train efficiently by practicing multiple take offs and landings in a short amount of time, they tend to generate more noise than typical flights.[18] Instead of a single arrival and departure, touch-and-go training concentrates multiple takeoffs, landings, and low altitude passes over the same area repeatedly.[19]As a result, smaller airports with significant training activity can produce disproportionately persistent noise than similar airports with fewer training operations.[20]
Although essential to pilot training, touch-and-goes produce noise that residents feel is continuous and excessive.[21] In response to increases in these operations, communities often push for restrictions on training hours and limits on touch-and-go flights.[22] This creates a policy dilemma: reducing noise impacts for residents can constrain training opportunities for pilots and the operational flexibility of airports.
Health Concerns Regarding Lead in Fuel
Another concern surrounding airport land use involves the use of leaded aviation fuel, which can create environmental and health hazards.[23] While most large aircraft operate on unleaded fuel, piston engine aircrafts still rely on leaded fuel.[24] These aircrafts are small propeller-driven planes primarily used for pilot training and short-distance travel, often performing touch-and-go maneuvers.[25] When piston-engine aircraft burn fuel containing lead, tiny particles are released into the air and can settle on nearby land.[26] These lead particles are toxic to humans and can cause health issues, including developmental delays, cardiovascular complications, and neurological damage.[27]
Despite these risks, many small aircraft still rely on leaded fuel because it provides the high octane levels necessary for safe engine performance.[28] Tetraethyl lead is added to prevent engine knocking at high pressures and temperatures.[29] Without it, piston engines may experience reduced efficiency or even failure, making the switch to unleaded fuel technically challenging.[30]
Efforts are underway to develop and certify unleaded aviation fuels that can safely replace leaded gas.[31]However, adoption has been slow due to technical, regulatory, and economic hurdles.[32] Until suitable alternatives are widely available, communities near airports remain exposed to lead emissions, underscoring the tension between airport operations and public health.
RMAA Lawsuit
A recent legal battle involving RMMA illustrates the impact of incompatable land use on surrounding communities. RMMA is home to four flight schools that use piston engine aircraft, which often use touch-and-go maneuvers in training.[33] The Town of Superior claims that in 2024, an aircraft was overhead the area every ninety seconds on average during the entire year, causing consistent noise for residents.[34]
That year, the Boulder County Board of County Commissioners and the Town of Superior filed a complaint for public nuisance against Jefferson County, seeking an injunction to limit training flight activities due to noise and pollution.[35] Plaintiffs claimed that the frequent low-altitude touch-and-go maneuvers resulted in excessive noise and lead pollution.[36]
Defendants argued that federal law preempted the court from issuing an injunction, citing U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc., which established that federal law generally preempts local governments’ ability to regulate aircraft noise.[37] The Boulder County District Court agreed with defendants, dismissing the lawsuit.[38]
On March 16, 2026, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal with respect to plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to restrict aircraft noise.[39] The court reiterated that “since City of Burbank, courts have consistently held that state and local aviation noise restrictions are preempted by federal law.”[40] However, with respect to the lead-based fuel concerns, the court reversed dismissal and remanded to the district court to determine whether that portion of the claim is also preempted by federal law.[41] The court reasoned that pollution-related claims are distinct from noise-related claims and are not controlled by the same preemption principles under City of Burbank, but instead require analysis under the Clean Air Act.[42] The outcome of the remanded RMMA lawsuit could influence future land use decisions around airports by clarifying the extent courts may regulate pollution issues from airport operations.
Planning and Policy Implications
The conflict at RMMA highlights important planning and policy implications for managing incompatible land use near airports. This case is just one example of the many land use conflicts involving airports that arise across the country. As development continues to expand into areas surrounding airports, these conflicts are likely to become even more frequent.
Early coordination between airports, local governments, and developers is critical, as retroactive mitigation is difficult once incompatible uses are already established. By guiding development toward compatible uses, local governments can reduce conflicts while supporting both community safety and airport operations.
[11]LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND AIRPORTS, supra note 3, at V-36;Airport Cooperative Research Program, Land Use Concerns, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, https://crp.trb.org/acrpwebresource1/land-use-concerns/ (last visited Apr. 19, 2026).
[12]LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND AIRPORTS, supra note 3, at III-13.
Comments