Land Use Legal Issues Flashcards
Takings
Many cases where property has claimed govt has in effect “taken” their property by enforcing certain regs.
5th Amendment
prohibits govt from taking property for public use wo/just compensation.
14th Amendment
prohibits taking of private property wo/due process of law.
Eminent domain
Right of govt to acquire private property from unwilling seller for public use
Govt must compensate property owner fairly according to 5th Amendment
Use of ED may involve condemnation of deteriorated property
Court must determine that use is public and must decide on compensation.
Freedom of speech
1st Amendment
Many cases where people claim that a regulation denies them this freedom
Signage and adult uses
Ripeness doctrine
Claim is ready for judicial review only after a property owner has sought all possible relief through variance or condemnation procedures
Est by 1985, Williamson County Regional Planning Comm v Hamilton Bank.
Takings cases
1910, Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Boston
1915, Hadacheck v. Sebastian,
1922, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. McMahon
1926, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. –(Alfred Bettman successfully defended)
1978, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
1992, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission
1994, Dolan v. Tigard
1997, Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Growth Management cases
1968, Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope
1971, Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma. Petaluma
1976, Associated Home Builders of the Greater East Bay, Inc. v. City of Livermore
Aesthetics Cases
1954, Berman v. Parker
1963, People v. Stover
Signage Cases
1981, Metromedia v. City of San Diego
1984, City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent
1994, City of Ladue v. Gilleo
Adult uses
1976, Young v. American Mini-Theaters
1986, City of Renton v. Playtime Theater
Coming to the Nuisance/Right to Farm
1972, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Webb Development Co.
Moratoria cases
1972, Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo
1990, Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek
2002, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
1915, Hadacheck v Sebastian
Restricting certain nuisance land uses was a legitimate exercise of police power Supreme Court (SC) upheld ordinance in LA prohibiting operation of brickyard.
1922, Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon
Land use restriction constituted a taking. SC: “property may be regulated to a certain extent, but if regulation goes TOO FAR it will be a taking” = REGULATORY taking
Est concept that regulation of land use might be a taking.
1926, Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co
SC upheld validity of zoning as a legitimate exercise of police power and emphasized need to separate land uses, particularly single family homes, in order to protect public health, safety and welfare
Est ZONING as valid police power by local govt
1954, Berman v Parker
SC upheld redevelopment program that shifted public property to private lands and stated that public ownership of property was not the sole way to promote public purposes
Est AESTHETICS and REDEVELOPMENT as valid public purposes for eminent domain
Opened door for Kelo v New London ruling that condemnation of property needing economic imp is a public purpose = constitutional
1963, People v Stover
NY Court of Appeals ruled that Rye, NY aesthetics ordinance prohibiting a clothesline in front yard is a viable exercise of police power even if enacted for aesthetic reasons alone. Ordinance initiated in protest of Stovers’ continual hanging of rags as a way to protest taxes. Court made clear that ordinances enacted for AESTHETIC reasons were allowed.
1968, Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope
SC of PA found PUD process did not violate municipal comp plan and did not extend legislative authority to planning commission
Est legitimacy of PUD PROCESS
1971, Construction Ind of Sonoma Cty v City of Petaluma
Petaluma was experiencing rapid growth and development largely in single family homes. City wished to limit this type of development and adopted a limit on number of BUILDING PERMITS for SFHs/year. City sued on grounds that plan for development was arbitrary and capricious. 9th Circuit Appeals Court upheld Petaluma’s plan on grounds that it sought to preserve small town character/open space and promote growth at an orderly rate.
1972, Spurr Industries v Del Webb Development
Pre-existing cattle feedlot became NUISANCE for residential area more recently est by Del Webb
AZ Court of Appeals ruled large cattle operation should move to accommodate additional urban development. However, developers req to pay damages and expenses to feedlot owners.
1972, Golden v Planning Board of Rámapo
Town adopted ZONING ordinance that required timed growth. Developers could not obtain permits until facilities and services in place.
NY Court of Appeals ruled local govts could control growth based on provision of facilities
Landmark case supported local govts to regulate subdivision of land as means to manage and ctrl municipal growth.
1973, Fasáno v BCC of Washington County
Concerned rezoning to permit large mobile home park
Court in OR determined that burden of justifying change to zoning falls on party seeking change and that party must show change = consistent w/comp plan.
1976, Home Builders of East Bay v City of Livermore
CA SC upheld city ordinance that prohibited further development until school, sewer and water facilities complied with stds
1976, Young v American Mini Theaters
US SC upheld Detroit “adult zoning” ordinance that prohibited location of adult movie theater within 1K ft of another such theater or within 500 ft of residential area
Court argued that ordinance did not intend to restrain speech or violate 1st Amendment but only neighborhood character
1981, Metromedia v San Diego
US SC struck down ordinance that banned billboards yet permitted onsite commercial signage as an unconstitutional violation of free speech
Today communities regulate signage by reg size, location, lighting and req permits.
1982, Loretto v Teleprompter
Existing state law req property owners to permit installation of cable TV facilities on property
US SC held that this constituted a taking because it was a permanent physical invasion of private property
1984, City Council v Taxpayers of Vincent
US SC ruled City of LA violated the 1st Amend provision of free speech by banning noncommercial signage on public property.
1987, Nollan v California Coastal Commission
US SC held that the takings clause of the constitution was violated when a public agency would grant the Nollans a permit to build a house only if they provided a PUBLIC EASEMENT on their beachfront property.
1987, First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of LA
Flood destroyed church’s campground buildings. In response, LA County passed interim ordinance prohibiting reconstruction in that area
US SC found flood had destroyed all reasonable economic use of land = TAKING
1992, Lucas v SC Coastal Council
Landowner who had been denied permission to build a house on a developed shorefront successfully challenged coastal zone protection law. US SC held that regulations that deny ALL ECONOMIC USE of property = TAKING unless existing state property and nuisance law prohibits such use.
1994, Dolan v City of Tigard
Storeowner wanted to expand business but would be granted permit only if dedicated a portion of land to public greenway
US SC held that permit conditions that require deeding portions of property to govt are justifiable if required dedication = ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL to impact of proposed development. Court ruled no reasonable relationship between granting of a permit and the requirement of public land dedication.
1994, City of Ladue v Gilleo
US SC ruled that city could not ban someone from posting a noncommercial window sign at residence
Ex, anti-war
1997, Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Whether or not property owner must ATTEMPT to sell development rights before claiming regulatory taking wo/just compensation
Suitum owned undeveloped lot. Regional Planning Agency determined lot to be ineligible for development according to agency regs. However, a TDR program had been est, giving owner the option of selling development rights. Rather than attempting to sell the rights, Suitum sued agency claiming agency’s determination = regulatory taking wo/just compensation
Lower courts ruled case not ripe for adjudication because Suitum had not attempted to sell development rights. US SC decided to the contrary and determined that the claim of a regulatory taking was ripe for adjudication.
1999, Del Monte Dunes v City of Monterey
US SC recognized right to a jury trial in a regulatory taking case.
2002, Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
US SC upheld use of development moratoria and said that moratorium is not a taking of property requiring compensation.
Four 2005 SC decisions that affirmed planning process/good planning principles
kelo, lingle, abrams, san remo
In each case, court rejected attempts to take away established planning/development tools
In each case, court acknowledged development decisions are best made locally
2005, Kelo v City of New London
City economic development plan included property owned by Kelo for an economic development project to improve the city
Legal question = whether ED is a public use for which eminent domain may be used
US SC = yes
Public ownership of land is not the only acceptable method of promoting public purposes; govt’s pursuit of public purpose may depend upon individual private enterprise
2005, Lingle v Chevron (reverses Agins)
US SC provided clarity for takings cases by removing “substantially advances” test (Agins v Tiburon) to identify regulatory takings
Decision reaffirmed legal principles that when govt takes property, it must pay, and that a taking occurs when regulations destroy all econ value of property
Argument in this case indicates that planning process which involves the participation of all segments of the community works to refine public interest
2005, City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams
Case asked what remedies are available to property owner if municipality violates Telecommunications Act of 1996
TCA prohibits local govts from discriminating among providers of equivalent services, from taking actions that prohibit provision of wireless services, and from limiting placement of wireless facilities on basis of environmental effects of radio freq emissions
SC decision means property owners who successfully challenge municipalities and counties on violations of the TCA can ask court to remedy violation and issue permit but cannot obtain money for damages.
2005, San Remo Hotel v City of San Francisco
What court should decide what? And when?
SC concluded that state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land use decisions.
