Tag: Inverse Condemnation and Takings

If At First You Succeed, Don’t Try, Try, Try Again

The Fifth District Court of Appeal has confirmed that the 90-day statute of limitations under the Subdivision Map Act includes takings claims arising out of Map Act decisions. Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, No. F069145 (Fifth Dist., June 3, 2015).  (Honchariw III) This is the third published decision arising from denial of plaintiff Honchariw’s nine-lot … Continue Reading

Don’t Bank On It: Court of Appeal Takes Issue with City’s Development Prohibition

A city cannot prohibit development on more than one-third of an otherwise developable site in anticipation of future condemnation of that portion of the property. Such a restriction denies the landowner all economically beneficial use of the restricted land and constitutes a taking requiring just compensation. Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC v. City of Indio, No. … Continue Reading

Federal Court Invalidates San Francisco Tenant Relocation Requirements

The Northern District of California has struck down part of San Francisco’s rent control ordinance as an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment in Levin v. City and County of San Francisco, Dist. Court, ND California 2014, No. 3:14-cv-03352-CRB (N.D. Ca Oct 21, 2014). The case may have important implications for monetary exactions in local … Continue Reading

Requiring dedication of overflight easement as condition to issuance of building permits does not constitute an unconstitutional exaction

 A recent California Court of Appeal decision considered the argument that a county requiring property owners to dedicate an overflight easement as a condition to issuance of a building permit was an unconstitutional exaction. The court concluded that the owners could not establish a taking because they were unable to show that the government simply … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Monetary Exactions are Subject to Nexus and Rough Proportionality Requirements

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court expanded the reach of the requirement that there be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the impacts of a proposed development and governmental conditions imposed on the development.  Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). The Court held that these requirements … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Rules Temporary Flooding May Give Rise To Takings Claim

In an important constitutional decision, the Supreme Court made clear there is no “blanket” rule prohibiting a takings cause of action for government-induced flooding that is only temporary.  The Court therefore reversed the Federal Circuit, which had decided such flooding must be “permanent or inevitably recurring” to give rise to a viable takings claim.  Arkansas … Continue Reading