The mere loss of a homeowners’ unobstructed view, without any physical intrusion onto their properties, does not constitute a compensable taking. Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills, 246 Cal. App. 4th 1212 (2016). In 1989, the City planted 31 coastal redwood trees in a park adjacent to Spalding Drive in Beverly Hills. In 2005, nearby … Continue Reading
The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area has filed a lawsuit in federal court in the Northern District of California challenging the City of Oakland’s recent adoption of a public art ordinance on constitutional grounds. The challenged Ordinance requires developers to install art works (worth at least 1/2% of the total cost of residential … Continue Reading
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
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
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
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
It takes an unusual set of circumstances for a California appellate court to find a regulatory taking based on denial of a discretionary land use entitlement. But those circumstances existed in a recent case in which the court not only found a taking, but upheld an award of attorney’s fees to the developer for both … Continue Reading
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
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
