Takings & Inverse Condemnation

York v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1178

The Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that property owners whose request  to grade almost 80,000 cubic yards on their property was denied by a city, but who submitted no other alternative grading proposal in connection with their plans to build a

Perez v. County of Monterey (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 257

The Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District affirmed a trial court judgment that rejected constitutional claims, including a regulatory takings challenge, against a Monterey County ordinance that provided that no one may keep more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster

Building Industry Association  – Bay Area v. City of Oakland, 2018 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 18822 (Case No., 15-cv-03392, Feb. 5, 2018)

Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use exactions and permit conditions are governed by the two-part test in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512

In Murr v. Wisconsin, U.S., 137 S.Ct. 1933 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court established a multi-factored test to determine what is the proper unit of property against which to assess whether a challenged governmental action constitutes a regulatory taking for which just compensation is owed under the U.S. Constitution. Because the test for

In 2016, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued this warning about legislative exactions: “Until we decide this issue, property owners and local governments are left uncertain about what legal standard governs legislative ordinances and whether cities can legislatively impose exactions that would not pass muster if done administratively.” He stated there are “compelling reasons

Class Description

Stay up-to-date on recent developments in California law affecting land use, planning and environmental compliance. Experts from the field provide succinct and practical analysis on recent case law and significant legislative and administrative changes that took effect this year.

Topics Include:

  • General plans, specific plans and zoning
  • The Subdivision Map Act
  • CEQA
  • Changes

Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212

By Glen C. Hansen

In Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District held that the trial court properly sustained the City of Beverly Hills’ (“City”) demurrer to an inverse condemnation cause of action

Reserve your seat for one of four seminars taking place in early 2016.

In January and February 2016 Abbott & Kindermann, LLP will present its 15th annual educational program for clients and colleagues interested in current land use, environmental, and real estate issues affecting commercial and residential development, agriculture, real estate transactions, easements, mining

By William W. Abbott

Coppinger v. Rawlins (August 14, 2015, E060664) ___ Cal.App.4th ___.

County acceptance of a roadway dedication on a map does not assure acceptance of the roadway into the County maintained highway system.

In 1980, Robinson filed a parcel map, creating two numbered lots and 3 lettered lots: A, B and C. By certificate on the map, the County accepted the dedication offer on Lot A into the County maintained road system, and accepted Lots B and C on behalf of the public, but not into the County maintained system, specifying that acceptance would require a separate resolution by the Board of Supervisors.


Continue Reading

By Glen C. Hansen

In Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 388, the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District held that a landowner’s inverse condemnation claim for damages against the County of Stanislaus caused by an unconstitutional temporary taking was time-barred under Government Code section 66499.37. The owner previously had filed a successful petition for writ of mandate challenging the disapproval of a subdivision application, which resulted in the County’s reconsideration of the application and eventual approval of the project. However, the owner’s subsequent claim for compensation damages was time-barred under section 66499.37 because the mandamus proceeding had not established that there had been a compensable taking.


Continue Reading