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
Takings & Inverse Condemnation
The Constitutionality of Legislative Exactions Is Explained In Recent Journal Article Published By Abbott & Kindermann Inc.’s Senior Counsel.
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…
Join William Abbott on March 1, 2017 for UC Davis Extension’s Annual Land Use Law Review and Update
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.
- General plans, specific plans and zoning
- The Subdivision Map Act
If You Like The View, Buy The View: No Inverse Condemnation Claim Where City Trees Obstruct View Of The “Hollywood” Sign From Beverly Hills Homes
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…
REGISTER TODAY! Abbott & Kindermann’s 15th Annual Land Use, Real Estate, and Environmental Law Update
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…
Accepting Roadway Dedications On Behalf Of The Public As Compared To Accepting Roads Into The Publically Maintained Road System. Words Matter.
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 Accepting Roadway Dedications On Behalf Of The Public As Compared To Accepting Roads Into The Publically Maintained Road System. Words Matter.
Do You Seek Compensation For An Unconstitutional Taking? Then Plead That With The Mandamus Action To Avoid The Potential Statute Of Limitations Bar!
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 Do You Seek Compensation For An Unconstitutional Taking? Then Plead That With The Mandamus Action To Avoid The Potential Statute Of Limitations Bar!
County’s Unreasonable Change In Position To Stop Project Results In $1 Million Temporary Takings Award.
By Glen C. Hansen
In Lockaway Storage v. County of Alameda (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 161, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed a trial court judgment that found that the County of Alameda was liable for $989,640.96 in damages for a temporary taking of plaintiff’s property, where the county stopped work on plaintiff’s project in light of a growth control initiative, even though the project fell within an exemption in the initiative and county officials failed to even consider such exemption, and where the county’s action in stopping the project constituted an unreasonable change from the County’s prior representations made to the property owner. …
Continue Reading County’s Unreasonable Change In Position To Stop Project Results In $1 Million Temporary Takings Award.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Nollan/Dolan Jurisprudence Is Catching Up With The California Supreme Court in Ehrlich v. Culver City
By Glen C. Hansen
For nearly twenty years, Fifth Amendment takings challenges to adjudicative land-use exactions and permit conditions have been governed by the dual Supreme Court cases of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987),and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). In Nollan, the Court held that a government could, without paying the compensation, demand the easement as a condition for granting a development permit the government was entitled to deny, provided that the exaction would substantially advance the same government interest that would furnish a valid ground for denial of the permit. The Court further refined that requirement in Dolan, holding that an adjudicative exaction requiring dedication of private property must also be “‘roughly proportional’ . . . both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.” However, Nollan and Dolan involved the dedication of real property interests. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, ___ U.S. ___, 2013 U.S. Lexis 4918 (2013), the Court held in a 5-4 decision that “the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money.” …
Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court’s Nollan/Dolan Jurisprudence Is Catching Up With The California Supreme Court in Ehrlich v. Culver City
Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Invalidation Of Local Inclusionary Ordinance; Remanded For Further Review
By William W. Abbott
In California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (June 6, 2013, H038563) ___ Cal.App.4th ___, the City of San Jose adopted an inclusionary ordinance, requiring that new residential projects include units affordable to specified income ranges. Alternatively, the ordinance permitted the developer to pay an in lieu fee or dedicate land. The California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) filed suit, challenging the validity of the ordinance on its face on the basis that the ordinance lacked any nexus to the deleterious effects of new residential development. CBIA did not allege that a compensable takings had occurred, but rather argued that the City lacked sufficient justification for the ordinance. The trial court agreed with CBIA and invalidated the ordinance. The City appealed.…
Continue Reading Appellate Court Reverses Trial Court Invalidation Of Local Inclusionary Ordinance; Remanded For Further Review