Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

IMG_20200914_132901

Yes, it’s that time of the year again. Fall’s-a-coming, and that means that soon, we’ll be back at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia to lead two courses:

  • Eminent Domain and Property Rights
  • Land Use Controls

Unlike last year, we’re not going to be on Zoom, or in the Tennis Center, or even spread out in a distanced classroom. Back in-person with some precautions taken.

The registration numbers are good (really good), and two full classrooms will be a nice sight after what seems like a very long time.

Time to jack back into the (takings and land use) Matrix.

6a00d83451707369e20240a476d216200c-800wiContinue Reading Back To School: Season Four

Screenshot 2021-08-11 at 14-56-53 Constitutional Litigator Property Rights (two openings) Pacific Legal Foundation

You’ve got big dreams, you want fame…

If so, here’s your chance: two (2!) Takings Maven Dream Jobs® are now available.

Pacific Legal Foundation requesting applications for positions as a Property Rights Constitutional Litigator. Job description includes “You will find and win the next important Supreme Court property rights case.”

Oh, have we got your attention now?

You: An entrepreneurial freedom fighter with a passion for, and significant experience in, property rights litigation. You find and win cutting-edge property rights cases across the country. You are a national spokesperson for property rights—you speak at conferences, engage the media, and publish scholarship on property rights. You are a leader who will elevate PLF’s junior attorneys to be the best property rights litigators in the nation. You have demonstrated a dedication to public interest law and property rights throughout your career.

…

You will be a leader in PLF’s…

Continue Reading Takings Maven Dream Job® (x2): Property Rights Constitutional Litigator at Pacific Legal Foundation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s recent opinion in A Flock of Seagirls LLC v. Walton County, No. 20-12584 (Aug. 5, 2021) isn’t about judicial takings, or even about eminent domain (even though a straight condemnation turned up in the factual background).

But this blog’s frequently flyers might want to take a read anyhow because it involves public and private rights of use in the dry-sand beach along the Florida coast. We know those issues are closely related to our faves like public trust, judicial takings and the like, so read on.

Here are the facts. The county holds an express easement along two beachfront lots for “a way of passage, on or by foot only” that the State of Florida earlier had exacted from the owners in the course of eminent domain proceedings. But if the county tries to use the easement for some…

Continue Reading We Already Have An Express Easement Allowing Public Foot Traffic On Private Beach. Walton County: Hold My Beer!

Check out this recently-filed cert petition, which asks the Court to review a California Court of Appeal decision about exactions.

It’s a somewhat odd situation: the county issued a building permit, but conditioned it (yes, the county tried to put a condition in a ministerial building permit!) on the property owners recording a deed restriction that they will forever preserve the natural vegetation on a portion of the lot. “Visually important ridgelines” and all that.

Land use types will immediately understand our puzzlement. Building permits are the classic ministerial (“shall issue”) development permits. Meaning that the issuing official has no discretion to deny a permit if the applicant meets the straightforward requirements of the building code, and certainly doesn’t have the authority to grant a permit with conditions. That’s way outside the building department’s authority, and the applicant should be able to get a court to issue a…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Building Permit That Comes With Requirement To Preserve Plants Is An “Exaction”

All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:

  • Property Rights as Civil Rights
  • Eminent Domain National Update
  • Just Relocation: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
  • Challenging Public Use: Lessons From a 67-Day Trial
  • COVID Takings
  • Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge: How to Prepare
  • Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
  • How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don’t Get Built
  • Rural Broadband and the Emerging Constitutional Challenges
  • Are Precondemnation Entry Statutes Still Valid After Cedar Point Nursery?
  • How Condemnor and Property Owners’ Counsel Prepare the Battlefield
  • How Will the Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Bill Impact Your Practice?
  • Ethics
  • …and more, including a full slate of networking and social events!

We’ve sold out the last few years, so don’t miss out. Room block now taking reservations. Continue Reading Join Us For The 39th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022 (Scottsdale, AZ)

Iin North Mill Street, LLC v. City of Aspen, No. 20-1130 (July 27, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a claim that the city’s denial of a rezoning application to allow residential development effected a taking was not ripe because the city’s process also allows a property owner to ask the city to allow site-specific development even if not in conformity with the current zoning, and the plaintiff had not availed itself of this process. Thus, the takings claim was not ready for judicial review under “final decision” Williamson County ripeness.

But the really interesting part of the opinion is a footnote. See slip op. at 15 n.9. There, the court noted that it is joining the majority of other courts in holding that “final decision” ripeness is not a matter of a lack of Article III jurisdiction. Rather, it is merely a…

Continue Reading CA10 Deepens The Split: Williamson County’s “Final Decision” Requirement Is Prudential, Not Jurisdictional


Talk amongst yourselves.

We’ve had our say, so in this post — the sixth and final post in a series of deeper dives about June’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid , No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’re linking to what others are saying about the case.

Here are all of the posts in our Cedar Point series:

And in case you missed the live webcast on Friday, July 16, 2021 that featured expert analysis of the case, please don’t miss listening to the recording of ALI-CLE’s “Takings and Eminent Domain After Cedar Point: What Practitioners …

Continue Reading Cedar Point Part VI: What Others Are Saying

In this post — the fifth and penultimate post in a series of deeper dives that we’re posting about June’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’ll be trying to take some educated guesses about what the decision means for the future.

Here are all of the posts in our Cedar Point series:

And in case you missed the live webcast on Friday, July 16, 2021 that featured expert analysis of the case, please don’t miss listening to the recording of ALI-CLE’s “Takings and Eminent Domain After Cedar Point: What …

Continue Reading Cedar Point Part V: Help Us Help You

IMG_20170323_142808

Here’s one we’re now following, thanks to a heads-up from a northern colleague.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in a case involving what Canadian law calls “de facto expropriation” (what we’d call “regulatory takings”).

Before you review the Application for Leave to Appeal by the property owner, and the responsive memorandum for the government, recall that even though Canada’s approach to “takings” is not a constitutional question, but nonetheless like the southern version of the doctrine, focuses on whether some government act has the effect of acquiring from the owner a beneficial interest, or removed all reasonable uses. See Canadian Pacific Railway v. Vancouver (City), 1 S.C.R. 227, 2006 SCC 5 (2006).

In Annapolis Group Inc v. Halifax Regional Municipality, the Supreme Court will consider whether Halifax’s refusal to approve Annapolis’ development applications (consistent with its residential zoning, more specifically “future serviced …

Continue Reading Canada Supreme Court To Review De Facto Expropriation (aka Regulatory Takings) Case

Permanentortemporary

In this post — the fourth in a series of deeper dives that we’re posting about June’s U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, No. 20-107 (June 23, 2021) — we’ll be discussing the two separate opinions, Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence, and the Justice Breyer-authored dissent.

Here are all of the posts in our Cedar Point series:

And in case you missed the live webcast on Friday, July 16, 2021 that featured expert analysis of the case, please don’t miss listening to the recording of ALI-CLE’s “Takings and Eminent Domain After Cedar Point: What Practitioners Need to Know…

Continue Reading Cedar Point Part IV: The Other Opinions