Land Use Law Commons^™

What The Free-Roaming Cats Dragged In: Regulatory Concerns With Privatized Local Services, Jonathan Korger

Northwestern University Law Review

The United States entrusts local governments to provide citizens with a wide range of public services, and animal control makes up a small but essential piece of these local responsibilities. In recent years, American localities have largely privatized how they manage the nation’s growing free-roaming cat population, relying primarily on animal-loving volunteers and a controversial practice called trap-neuter-return (TNR). Academics have long debated the merits of privatization, but TNR raises a novel question: how should local governments think about regulating a privatized public service when altruism, instead of profits, motivates the service deliverer? This Note argues that TNR demonstrates the …

The Exactions Illusion: Sheetz’S Missing Dissent, Lee Anne Fennell, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In April 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously handed down Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, a land use exactions case billed as narrow, inevitable, constitutionally compelled, and obviously correct.  It was none of those things. Sheetz instead ushered in an open-ended shift of policy control over the built environment from state and local legislatures to courts. By its terms, the holding extended the Court’s stringent “exactions” test—which requires the government to prove nexus and proportionality between development conditions and development impacts—beyond its original context of parcel-specific administrative bargains to reach an unspecified set of legislated property conditions. Yet the decision’s …

Take In Case Of Emergency: Reconciling Necessity Takings With The Original Meaning Of The Takings Clause, Tony Smith

Northwestern University Law Review

Does the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause permit the state to destroy property without compensation whenever it declares an emergency? The long-standing doctrine of necessity empowers the state to do exactly that.

Courts dating back to common law England have permitted governments to claim a privilege of necessity to avoid paying for private property they destroy in times of crisis. The privilege rests on the principle that the public good sometimes outweighs the harm the individual suffers. Today’s courts and academics stretch this principle to its limits, arguing necessity should be used as a vehicle for combating all manner of social …

Taking Back Control: Using The Takings Clause To Hold Animal Agriculture Responsible For Its Waste Problem, Rowan Aragon

Northwestern University Law Review

Between the mid-twentieth century and modern day, the animal-agriculture model has shifted from small farms to industrial operations. During that evolution, the negative externalities of animal-farming practices have intensified. One of those externalities—animal waste—has become particularly problematic. Because of the sheer number of animals raised in the United States for slaughter and dairy production, the magnitude of animal waste produced is overwhelming. To deal with this problem, animal farmers often liquefy the animal waste and then spray it onto open fields. In that spraying process, liquefied animal waste carries through the air and reaches nearby homes, coating those properties with …

Federal Courts And Takings Litigation, Ann Woolhandler, Julia D. Mahoney

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article first gives an overview of the role of the federal courts in takings claims over time, with a view to providing a more complete picture than that supplied by focusing either on the Lochner/New Deal-era dichotomy or on the advent of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (current § 1983). It traces the fairly robust role of the federal courts in protecting property under a nonconfiscation norm both before and during the Lochner era. It also points out that the legislative history of the 1871 Civil Rights Act does not support a firm conclusion that Congress intended takings …

Takings Localism, Nestor M. Davisdson, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

Conflicts over “sanctuary” cities, minimum wage laws, and gender-neutral bathrooms have brought the problematic landscape of contemporary state preemption of local governance to national attention. This Article contends that more covert, although equally robust, state interference can be found in property, with significant consequences for our understanding of takings law.

Takings jurisprudence looks to the states to mediate most tensions between individual property rights and community needs, as the takings federalism literature recognizes. Takings challenges, however, often involve local governments. If the doctrine privileges the democratic process to resolve most takings claims, then, that critical process is a largely local …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

A Requiem For Regulatory Takings: Reclaiming Eminent Domain For Constitutional Property Claims, Danaya C. Wright

UF Law Faculty Publications

For the past forty years, the United States Supreme Court has embraced the doctrine of regulatory takings, despite being unable to provide any coherent and reliable guidance on when a regulation goes so far as to require compensation. But Justice Thomas's admission in Murr v. Wisconsin (2017) that there is no real historical basis for the Court's regulatory takings jurisprudence offers a chance to reconsider the doctrine anew. Looking back to Justice Holmes's prophetic statement in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, that a regulation can go too far and require an exercise of eminent domain to sustain it, I …

Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …

Are Beach Boundaries Enforceable? Real-Time Locational Uncertainty And The Right To Exclude, Josh Eagle

Faculty Publications

Over the past few decades, landowners have tried to use the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to fully privatize the upper, dry-sand part of the beach. If these efforts were to succeed, there would be a host of negative consequences, and not just for surfers. In most of the states in which beaches are economically important, including California, Florida, New Jersey and Texas, privatized dry sand would mean little to no public access at times when the public, wet-sand part of the beach is submerged, that is, in the hours immediately before and after high tides. Decreased beach use would …

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. V. United States: Tipping The Scales In Favor Of Private Property Rights At The Public's Expense, Susan E. Spokes University Of Maine School Of Law

Maine Law Review

In Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the denial of a federal wetlands permit under section 1344 of the Clean Water Act may constitute a compensable taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court remanded the case to the Federal Court of Claims to determine the value of the property remaining after the permit denial, while warning the trial court that the existing record did not support a finding of the loss of all economically viable use of the property. The Federal …

One Parcel Plus One Parcel Equals A "Parcel As A Whole" Murr V. Wisconsin's Fluid Calculations For Regulatory Takings, Shelby D. Green

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Court's most recent major property law case, Murr v. Wisconsin, 137 S. Ct. 1933 (2017), tackles one of the thorny, recurring issues in regulatory takings jurisprudence: what is the proper “denominator” to use in determining whether a government regulation has so greatly diminished the economic value of a parcel of land that it effects a taking? More specifically, Murr looked at what constitutes the “parcel as a whole” when a landowner holds title to two contiguous lots. Should a court assess the economic impact on the value of each lot separately or the impact on the value of the …

A Hobbesian Bundle Of Lockean Sticks: The Property Rights Legacy Of Justice Scalia, J. Peter Byrne

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No modern United States Supreme Court Justice has stimulated more thought and debate about the constitutional meaning of property than Antonin Scalia. This essay evaluates his efforts to change the prevailing interpretation of the Takings Clause. Scalia sought to ground it in clear rules embodying a reactionary defense of private owners’ prerogatives against environmental and land use regulation. Ultimately, Scalia aimed to authorize federal judicial oversight of state property law developments, whether through legislative or judicial innovation. In hindsight, he stands in a long tradition of conservative judges using property law as a constitutional baseline by which to restrain regulation.

On The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Of Lucas: Making Or Breaking The Takings Claim, Carol Brown

Law Faculty Publications

In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the United States Supreme Court established the premier categorical regulatory takings standard with certain limited exceptions. The Lucas rule establishes that private property owners are entitled to compensation for a taking under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause when a government regulation “denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Today, Lucas remains the controlling law on categorical regulatory takings. But in application, how much does Lucas still matter?

My review of more than 1,600 cases in state and federal court reveals only twenty-seven cases in twenty-five years in which courts found …

Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin

Northwestern University Law Review

Local governments typically insure themselves against all kinds of losses, from property damage to legal liability. For small- and medium-sized governments, this usually means purchasing insurance from private insurers or participating in municipal risk pools. Insurance for regulatory takings claims, however, is generally unavailable. This previously unnoticed gap in municipal insurance coverage could lead risk averse local governments to underregulate and underenforce existing regulations where property owners threaten to bring takings claims. This seemingly technical observation turns out to have profound implications for theoretical accounts of the Takings Clause that focus on government regulatory incentives. This Article explores the impact …

Climate Exactions, J. Peter Byrne, Kathryn A. Zyla

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Access Vs. Private Property: The Struggle Of Coastal Landowners To Keep The Public Off Their Land, James D. Donahue

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Scholarly Works

Although Justice Scalia generally described himself as an originalist, his opinion in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council rejected originalist arguments. Why? This article suggests that pre-Lucas precedent and the ambiguity of the historical record might justify his methodology.

Land Use Law Update: The 2015 Mid-Year Roundup, Sarah Adams-Schoen

Scholarly Works

This update summarizes New York cases related to land use and zoning that were decided in the first half of 2015.

From Railroads To Sand Dunes: An Examination Of The Offsetting Doctrine In Partial Takings, Louis M. Russo

Fordham Law Review

Called “shadowy at best,” the offsetting doctrine in partial takings has confused “even trained legal minds” and generated inconsistent decision after inconsistent decision.  The offsetting doctrine allows certain benefits, termed special, to offset condemnation awards, while general benefits may not be offset.  Courts blindly adhere to the doctrine despite its underpinnings rooted in eighteenth-century public policy, which was based on concerns of overly speculative valuation and arguably erroneous fairness, as well as incorrect interpretations of Takings Clause jurisprudence.  Such adherence dramatically increases the cost of financing a takings project.

In the face of blind adherence to the doctrine, municipalities are …

The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown

Touro Law Review

This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. The author surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. The author further identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts’ findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.

The Ripeness Game: Why Are We Still Forced To Play?, Michael M. Berger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Requiem For Regulation, Garrett Power

Faculty Scholarship

This comment reviews U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past 100 years which have considered the constitutional limitations on governmental powers. It finds that at the three-quarter mark of the 20th century, a remarkable set of Court precedents had swollen the regulatory powers of governments while shrinking private rights to property and contract. But since the Reagan years, a more conservative Court has undertaken to curtail governmental activity in general, and to limit federal, state, and local planning in particular. A number of 5-4 decisions expanded private property rights and contracted the scope of the federal “commerce power.” The comment …

Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District, Ross Keogh

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Koontz extends the application of Nollan and Dolan, which require exactions of real property for land-use permits to share a “nexus” and be “roughly proportional” to the regulation to be constitutional. A divided United States Supreme Court held that “monetary exactions,” potentially including building permit fees or impact fees, must satisfy the Nollan and Dolan requirements even if the government denies the permit.[1] The Court did not reach the merits of the petitioner’s appeal.

[1](Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., dissenting).

Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain

Pepperdine Law Review

This casenote examines the Supreme Court's struggle to reconcile its focus on the facial validity of a zoning ordinance with the traditional "taking" approach requiring diligent factual inquiry. While the Agins Court reiterates such an approach, the author notes the Court's departure from important constitutional and precedential considerations. The author offers a possible explanation for the departure, concluding that the Agins decision apparently makes plan submission a prerequisite for acknowledging economic loss and strongly implies a requirement of complete loss of all property value before a compensable taking will be recognized.

Exactions For The Future, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

New development commonly contributes to projected infrastructural demands caused by multiple parties or amplifies the impacts of anticipated natural hazards. At times, these impacts only can be addressed through coordinated actions over a lengthy period. In theory, the ability of local governments to attach conditions, or “exactions,” to discretionary land use permits can serve as one tool to accomplish this end. Unlike traditional exactions that regularly respond to demonstrably measurable, immediate development harms, these “exactions for the future” — exactions responsive to cumulative anticipated future harms — admittedly can present land assembly concerns and involve inherently uncertain long-range government forecasting. …

Proposed Exactions, Timothy M. Mulvaney

Faculty Scholarship

In the abstract, the site-specific ability to issue conditional approvals offers local governments the flexible option of permitting a development proposal while simultaneously requiring the applicant to offset the project’s external impacts. However, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the exercise of this option in Nollan and Dolan by establishing a constitutional takings framework unique to exaction disputes. This exaction takings construct has challenged legal scholars on several fronts for the better part of the past two decades. For one, Nollan and Dolan place a far greater burden on the government in justifying exactions it attaches to a development approval than …

Justice John Paul Stevens - His Take On Takings, Alan C. Weinstein

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This commentary reviews and analyzes Justice John Paul Stevens's role in shaping the Court's views on the takings issue in land use regulation.

Slides: Second Thoughts About The Antiquities Act: Does The Process For Public Land Decisionmaking Have An Ethical Dimension?, James R. Rasband

The Past, Present, and Future of Our Public Lands: Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the Public Land Law Review Commission’s Report, One Third of the Nation’s Land (Martz Summer Conference, June 2-4)

Presenter: James R. Rasband, Dean of the J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University (Provo, UT)

32 slides