AICP Takings Cases

Question 1

Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon (1922)

Answer 1

Coal Company sells surface rights to Mahon but reserve right to mine under property
State statute prohibits mining of coal if it causes subsidence (no physical invasion but reduction in value)
Mahon sues to cancel covenant based on new law
SCOTUS: Mahon loses, establishes concept of a regulatory taking
Must look at three factors in balancing test
Was their reasonable investment-backed expectation of value?
Was nature of governmental action legitimate?
What degree of loss was there?

The correct answer is Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. This 1922 US Supreme Court case set forth the “balancing of interests” approach for reviewing taking claims. The Pennsylvania Coal Company entered into an agreement with Mahon to mine coal beneath his property. In 1921, Pennsylvania passed the Kohler Act that prevented miners from extracting below surface coal from land that supported buildings. When the Coal company notified Mahon that it would mine coal beneath his property Mahon filed suit. Pennsylvania Coal contented this constituted at taking under the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court found that Pennsylvania exceeded its police powers by diminishing the value of the lane without a public interest. Because the regulation went to far it became a taking.

Question 2

Penn Central Transportation Co v City of New York (1978)

Answer 2

City does not prohibit use of all rights on the property, creates a TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) system for air rights above the station, owner can transfer those rights to other sites in Manhattan
SCOTUS: sided with City. A taking requires a loss of all reasonable use of the property; this regulation did not go too far per Mahon; must evaluate the entire property, not just a portion of it or one of the rights associated with ownership

Question 3

Loretto v Teleprompter CATV (1982)

Answer 3

SCOTUS: a physical invasion, no matter how small, is a taking and requires compensation. Damages were set at $1 because cable access increased property value

Question 4

First English Evangelic Lutheran Church v Los Angeles County (1987)

Answer 4

Temporary takings require compensation, such as moratorium on development rights

Question 5

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Answer 5

Owner denied building permits for two oceanfront lots after a hurricane
SCOTUS: this is a per se/categorical taking; owner lost all value of property but not all his rights (he still had title to the property)
Denied all economic use of the property = categorical taking, reaffirms Penn Coal case (loss of all value = compensatable taking as long as it’s not a nuisance)

Question 6

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2000)

Answer 6

Moratorium went off and on for 32 months to protect Lake Tahoe
SCOTUS: a temporary moratorium is not a per se taking; review each case on its facts; apply Penn Coal criteria (parcel as a whole)

Question 7

Palazzolo v Rhode Island (2001)

Answer 7

Current owner had valid development permit to build on a wetland but then state agency changes permit requirements
Palazzolo acquired property after change, denied permit to build under old rules
Sues for inverse condemnation/taking
SCOTUS: owner does not waive right to challenge a regulation as an uncompensated taking by purchasing property after the enactment of the regulation being challenged; no statute of limitations on the exercise of constitutional rights; case dismissed, no loss of all value per Penn Central
Warning to local governments not to get to clever or tricky

Question 8

Berman v Parker (1954)

Answer 8

Does police power include aesthetic or economic goals for local government?
SCOTUS: yes; may be taken for redevelopment purpose, not just use, as in 5th Amendment

Question 9

Kelo v City of New London (2005)

Answer 9

Use of police power to take private property strictly for economic benefit, no proof of blight or slum conditions
SCOTUS: upheld; economic benefit alone is sufficient justification for eminent domain to condemn an entire neighborhood
Backlash from states, passed laws banning use of eminent domain solely for economic development

Question 10

Stop the Beach Renourishment v Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010)

Answer 10

Can there be such as thing as a judicial taking if courts interpret property rights in a way that takes away the right a person thought they had in their property?
SCOTUS: possibly, but SC of FL had correctly decided the case, so they agreed with them

Question 11

Nollan v California Coastal Commission (1987)

Answer 11

Exactions
Govt demanded lateral beach access, justified for preserving public access to beach
SCOTUS: Must be an essential nexus between exaction and justification. Sides with Nollan

Question 12

Dolan v City of Tigard (1997)

Answer 12

Exactions
City imposes permit condition requiring easement for a bike path and storm water management system; 20 percent unbuildable
SCOTUS: essential nexus is not enough; rough proportionality between the exaction and its impacts on the property. Essential nexus was proved but there is no evidence on record to demonstrate that the degree of impact on the property was proportional; SCOTUS didn’t define proportional
2nd piece of dual nexus test (essential nexus and rough proportionality)

Question 13

Koontz v St Johns River WMD (2013)

Answer 13

Required cash contribution to make drainage improvements before permit approved for commercial development
Can there be a taking if not permit is actually issued and no exaction imposed?
SCOTUS: yes; concerned about “extortion” by government/extent of demands that govt is making; so dual nexus test still applies. Is cash contribution an exaction? Yes