1991-12-09 Public Hearing, Citizens Participation Meeting, and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

D FIRST LIHERAN CHURCH v. LOS ANGlES COUNTY Syllabus as a remedy Cor "temporary" regulatory takings-those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts-is properly pre- sented in this case. In earlier cases, this Court was unable to reach the question because either the regulations considered to be in issue by the state courts did not effect a taking, or the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred. Here, the California Court of Appeal assumed that the complaint sought damages for the uncompensated "taking" of all use of Lutherglen by the ordinance, and relied on the California Supreme Court's Agins decision for the conclusion that the remedy for the taking was limited to nonmonetary relief, thus isolating the remedial question for this Court's consideration. MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo CCYUnty, 477 U. S. -; Williamson Ccyunty Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U. S. 172; San Diego Gas &: Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621; and Agim, all distinguished. pp. 5-8. 2. Under the Just Compensation Clause, where the government has "taken" property by a land-use regulation, the landowner may recover damages for the time before it is finally detennined that the regulation constitutes a WWdng" of his property. The Clause is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interfer- ence amounting to a taking. A landowner is entitled to bring an action in inverse condemnation as a result of the self-executing character of the constitutional provision with respect to compensation. While the typi- cal taking occurs when the government acts to condemn property in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, the doctrine of inverse con- demnation is predicated on the proposition that a taking may occur with- out such Connal proceedings. "Temporary" regulatory takings which, as here, deny a landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from pennanent takings for which the Constitution clearly requires compensa.tion. Once a court detennines that a taking has occurred, the government retains the whole range of options already available-:- amendment of the regulation, withdrawal of the invalidated regulation,oor exercise of eminent domain. But where the government's activities have am~ady worked a taking of all use ot property, no subsequent action by the government oan nlllvl It ot thl duty to provldl oompenlltlon tor the period durlnlJ whloh the takJnl WAl IfTloUvl. (nvalhlaUon ot thl ordinance without payment 01 fair value for the use of the property during such period would be a constitutionally insufficient remedy. pp. 9-16. Reversed and remanded.