Eminent Domain

Supreme Court rejects regulatory takings challenge to zoning merger provision

/ Eminent Domain, Real Estate Transactions, Takings, Zoning

In Murr v. Wisconsin, 2017 WL 2694699 (U.S. 2017), the Supreme Court held that a zoning law that treated two contiguous parcels owned by the same persons as one parcel to determine minimum developable lot size was not an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. The merger law provided for variances that might allow development for lots that contained less than one acre of developable space but did not provide for such a variance if two lots were merged. One lot had a house on it and the other was vacant. The owners claimed that the vacant lot had no economically beneficial use since it could not be separately developed. However, the Supreme Court held that the denominator to determine the economic impact of the regulation was the “parcel as a whole” and that in this case that meant the merged parcels. Moreover, even if the two lots could be developed separately, …

Supreme Court rejects regulatory takings challenge to zoning merger provision Read More »

States may not take tribal land by eminent domain

/ Easements, Eminent Domain, Tribal Property

Lands owned by Indian nations and held in trust status cannot be taken by the states by eminent domain, although federal statutory authority allows states to take “allotments” held by the United States in trust for individual tribal citizens for public purposes including utility easements. 25 U.S.C. §357. The Tenth Circuit has held that if the tribe (in this case the Navajo Nation) owns a fractional interest in an allotment, then the state (or its service companies) cannot use eminent domain power to take a utility easement from those allotment owners. Public Serv. Co. of N.M. v. Barboan, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 9204 (10th Cir. 2017). The only way to acquire such an easement is for the land to be taken by the eminent domain power of the United States or in a voluntary sale with the consent of the relevant Indian nation and required consent by the United States generally exercised …

States may not take tribal land by eminent domain Read More »

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property

/ Due Process, Eminent Domain, Personal Property, Takings

The Supreme Court held in Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., — U.S. — (2015), that the takings clause applies to physical takings of personal property (like cars) as well as to real property. Thus a government program designed to shore up the price of raisins by requiring farmers to hand over a certain percentage of the raisin crop to the government effected a categorical physical taking of personal property. The limit on supply of raisins for sale was intended to increase the price farmers receive for the raisins they sell, thus promoting the profitability of their businesses. The expropriated raisins are given away or sold by the government and if any profits remain they are returned to the farmers. The Court held any economic benefits farmers received from increased raisin prices or moneys from sales of the raisins turned over to the government do not affect the question of whether a taking has occurred. …

Takings clause applies to physical seizure of personal property Read More »

California Supreme Court Upholds San Jose Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Against a Takings Challenge

/ Antidiscrimination Law, Eminent Domain, Real Estate Transactions, Takings, Zoning

The California Supreme Court has upheld the inclusionary zoning ordinance of the City of San Jose against a challenge that it constitutes an illegal exaction and violates the state constitution’s takings clause or the federal constitution’s takings clause. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. City of San Jose, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 3905 (Cal. 2015). The ordinance required all new development projects containing 20 housing units or more to reserve 15 percent for sale at affordable prices to low- or moderate-income families. San Jose Mun. Code, §§ 5.08.010 to 5.08.730. The Court held that the municipal government had the power to enact reasonable land use regulations designed to increase the amount and dispersion of affordable housing and that this ordinance served those ends. Because it regulated land use, it did not constitute an “exaction” or forced donation of land to public use. The Court held that so long as a land use regulation does …

California Supreme Court Upholds San Jose Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance Against a Takings Challenge Read More »

City can demolish blighted structure it believes is financially unreasonable to repair

/ Due Process, Eminent Domain, Takings

The Michigan Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that had held it to be unconstitutional for a city to demolish a structure that the city believes is financially unreasonable to repair even if the owner claims to want to make the repairs. The court held that it does not constitute a deprivation of due process of law to require the demolition given the fact that the owner allowed the property to become dilapidated and the city could rationally believe that demolition was the best remedy to remove the public nuisance. Bonner v. City of Brighton, 848 N.W.2d 380 (Mich. 2014).

Scroll to Top