Case Law

Question 1

Pennsylvania Coal Co. V Mahon (1922)

Answer 1

For the 1st time, supreme court ruled that land use, incl regulation that destroys the economic value of a property, might constitute a taking

Question 2

Euclid V Ambler Realty (1926)

Answer 2

Established zoning as a valid exercize of police power by local govts.

Question 3

For a zoning ordinance to be declared unconstitutional…

Answer 3

… it must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable

Question 4

Golden V Planning Board of Ramapo (1972)

Answer 4

Recognized growth phasing programs as a valid exercise of police power - there is a rational basis for phased growth, growth phasing does not qualify as confiscation

Question 5

Southern Burlington County NAACP V Mount Laurel (1975)

Answer 5

Every municipality must make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing - cannot foreclose the opportunity for low and moderate income households. Must provide at least “fair share” of regional contribution to affordable housing

Question 6

Arlington Heights V Metropolitan Housing Development Corp (1977)

Answer 6

Discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts

Question 7

Penn Central Transportation V City of New York (1978)

Answer 7

“Introduced a means-end balancing test for regulatory takings (diminution in property value not enough, taking must constitute entire property not just a discrete segment), validated historic preservation controls.
Test: 1) economic impact of the regulation, 2) extent to which the regulation interfered with reasonable investment backed expectations, 3) character of the governmental action (physical invasion vs some public program to promote the common good)”

Question 8

Metromedia, Inc V City of San Diego (1981)

Answer 8

Unequal treatment of noncommercial off premise signage is not permitted, on-premise signage must be allowed for both commercial and non-commercial purposes

Question 9

Southern Burlington County NAACP V Mount Laurel #2 (1983)

Answer 9

Every municipality’s regulations should provide realistic opportunity for housing, “builders remedies” to construct affordable units if a need established.

Question 10

Nollan V California Coastal Commission (1987)

Answer 10

Created “essential nexus” takings clause - development exactions must have a strong relationship between the problem created by the proposed development, and the proposed exaction, or else compensation may be required

Question 11

Lucas V South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Answer 11

Established “Categorical Takings” - new regulations that reduce all economically viable use of land require just compensation, except for regulations rooted in background principles of law

Question 12

Dolan V City of Tigard (1994)

Answer 12

Established higher standards from “Nollan’s” taking ruling - “rough proportionality” required between the development impact and the exaction

Question 13

City of Edmonds V Oxford House (1995)

Answer 13

Recognizes that definition of “family” contained in zoning ordinances that limit who may occupy a dwelling are subject to the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

Question 14

Tahoe Preservation Council V Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002)

Answer 14

Recognizes that temporary deprivations of property (moratoria), may constitute a taking, but must be analyzed on a case by case basis under the Penn Central Test

Question 15

Lingle V Chevron (2005)

Answer 15

Regulatory takings claims that do not deprive an owner of all economically viable use of land or property must be evaluated under Penn Central Test

Question 16

Kelo V City of New London (2005)

Answer 16

Upheld the use of economic domain for economic development purposes. Must have a demonstrated benefit that the taking unquestionably serves a public benefit

Question 17

Stop the Beach v Florida Dept of Environmental Protection (2010)

Answer 17

States may fill submerged land without constituting a taking on the rights of littoral property owners

Question 18

Koontz vs St Johns River Management District (2013)

Answer 18

Monetary exactions are subject to the Nollan and Dolan takings test

Question 19

Reed V Town of Gilbert (2015)

Answer 19

Subject matter distinctions are facially content based and subject to strict scrutiny, and clarified the relevance of governmental purpose in enacting the challenged law

Question 20

Murr V Wisconsin (2017)

Answer 20

Created a new text to determine the property unit (denominator) for a regulatory takings analysis. 1) whether state or local law treats the land as a single unit or separate units, 2) the physical characteristics of the property, and 3) the value of the property under the challenged regulation

Question 21

Whelch V Swasey (1909)

Answer 21

Held that height limits in certain areas of the city do not violate a property owners rights

Question 22

Young V American Mini Theaters (1976)

Answer 22

Ruled in favor of Young, stating that an adult theater may not (apart from a special waver) be located within 1,000’ of any other regulated uses or within 500’ of residential. Provided justification for proximity separation of land uses.

Question 23

Ladue V Gileo (1994)

Answer 23

The court decided that it was not permissible for a sign ordinance to ban signs based on their content.

Question 24

Burman V Parker (1954)

Answer 24

Holds that private property can be taken for a public purpose with just compensation (5th amendment)

Question 25

Belle Terre V Boraas (1974)

Answer 25

upheld the constitutionality of a residential zoning ordinance that limited the number of unrelated individuals who may inhabit a dwelling unit

Question 26

Austin V Older (1938)

Answer 26

Allows limitations on expanding non-conforming uses

Question 27

United States V Gettysburg Electric Railway Co (1896)

Answer 27

The first significant legal case concerning historic preservation. Court ruled that the Federal Government acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose