Item 12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 16 • However,even when a legitimate government purpose exists,a Agins v.Tiburon,447 U.S.255, taking occurs if the regulation denies a landowner all 100 S.Ct.2138(1980). economically viable use of his or her property. Lucas v.South Carolina A narrow exception has been carved out with respect to Coastal Comm'n,505 U.S. regulations that prohibit something that would have been 1003, 112 S.Ct.2886(1982). prohibited by the state's property or nuisance laws. Nollan v.California Coastal No taking occurs where an"essential nexus"exists between a Comm'n,438 U.S.825, 107 S. condition imposed on a development proposal and the burden Ct.3141 (1987). on the local unit of government caused by such development. Minnesota courts have ruled that for a taking to occur,the Parranto Brothers,Inc.v.City application of a land use ordinance must deprive the owner of of New Brighton,425 N.W.2d 585(Minn.App. 1985). all reasonable use of the land.Where a legitimate governmental purpose exists and some economically viable use of the property still exists,a taking will not be found. The court will look at the regulation's economic impact,the extent to which the landowner's investment-backed expectations have been diminished by the regulation,and the general character of the regulation. According to the courts,denial of conditional or special use Hubbard Broadcasting v.City permits and building permits do not constitute an of Afton,323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1982). unconstitutional taking of property where reasonable uses remain. First English Evangelical Two 1987 U.S. Supreme Court cases may have rekindled Lutheran Church v.Los interest in the takings issue.In one case,the Court ruled that if Angeles County,482 U.S.304, 107 S.Ct.2378(1987). a zoning or land use regulation is so restrictive as to deny property owners reasonable use of their property,they may recover monetary damages for the period the restriction was in effect,regardless of the length of time.This is not referred to as a temporary taking. Agins v.Tiburon,447 U.S.255, The decision was a significant change since prior law allowed 100 S.Ct.2138(1980). governments to simply abandon or repeal those restrictions that were found to result in a taking without requiring payment of damages for the time the regulation was in effect. Nollan v.California Coastal In the second case,the Court ruled that requiring a property Comm'n,483 U.S.825, 107 S. owner to grant a public easement across the beachfront of a lot, Ct.3141 (1987). before the owner could receive a building permit,was a taking See Lucas v.South Carolina of a property interest for which the owner was constitutionally Coastal Council,505 U.S. entitled to just compensation.The Court stated that a land use 1003, 112 S.Ct.2886(1992). regulation is not a taking if it substantially advances a legitimate state interest and does not deny an owner economically viable use of the land. • 391