Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

There’s one citation notably missing from the opinion of the Texas Court of Appeals in Anderton v. City of Cedar Hill, No. 05-12-00969-CV (Aug. 22, 2014): Williamson County.  

This was case where in response to the city’s petition that the Anderdons’ use of their property was illegal, they counterclaimed that they had nonconforming use rights, that the city’s petition violated their vested rights, and resulted in a taking of their property. The trial court granted the city summary judgment on the counterclaim, holding that the owners did not present evidence of their nonconforming use status, and that their inverse condemnation claim was not ripe because they had not pursued available administrative remedies under the zoning code.

The court of appeals reversed. It concluded that the owners did submit enough evidence to get past a summary judgment motion that their use was nonconforming. Most interestingly for our purposes…

Continue Reading Williamson County Wonderfully MIA In Texas Court’s Ripeness Analysis

The Texas Supreme Court is generally pretty good about property rights. See this opinion, this one, and this one, for examples.

So when the legal analysis in one of its regulatory takings/inverse condemnation opinions has the following language — especially in a case where a municipal government has treated the plaintiffs/property owners very badly — it would be understandable if you predicted the court was coming down on the side of the property owners:

The right to acquire and maintain private property is among our most cherished liberties. As Locke explained, the value of private property lies not only in its objective utility, but also in any personal investment therein. See John Locke, Two Treatises of Government 134 (Thomas I. Cook ed., Hafner Press 1947) (1689). Accordingly, the right to undisturbed enjoyment of residential property is all the more sacred. The unique importance of the home is reflected in our Bill of…

Continue Reading Texas (Reluctantly) Finds No Regulatory Takings Claim

Back in February, we blogged about an opinion from the Maine Supreme Court involving littoral property (that’s beachfront property to all you non-lawyers and Navy people), in which the court concluded that those who were asserting a prescriptive easement over the plaintiffs’ beachfront property– the Town  and several neighbors — had not rebutted Maine’s presumption of permissive recreational use of open land, when they introduced evidence that people generally made recreational use of the beach in front of the plaintiffs’ properties, without showing specifically where. Which meant that the public did not have a right of access over the plaintiffs’ beachfront land. The court also held that Maine does not recognize an “easement by custom.” 

Maine apparently allows a party who is disappointed with the court’s ruling to ask for reargument. Similar rules for reconsideration also are present in other courts, but with rare exception in our experience, those…

Continue Reading Maine: On Second Thought, We Were Right When We Said That Beach Property Is Not Subject To Special Rules

We bring you the latest guest post by colleague Paul Schwind, who has been tracking the issues and arguments that recently led the Hawaii Supreme Court to conclude, in DW Aina Lea Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Lea, LLC, No. SCAP-13-0000091 (Nov. 25, 2014), that the Hawaii Land Use Commission wrongfully rescinded an earlier reclassification of land (read: “rezoning” to all you non-Hawaii land users).

The oral argument recording is posted above.

We’ll post up our thoughts on the decision in a separate post. 

—————————————————————-

Hawaii Supreme Court In Aina Lea: The Rationales Behind The Opinion

by Paul J. Schwind*

Robert has asked me to summarize the rationales behind the holdings in the Hawaii Supreme Court’s recent opinion in DW Aina Lea Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Lea, LLC, No. SCAP-13-0000091 (Nov. 25, 2014), which he summarized the following day, outlining the litigation history of the…

Continue Reading Guest Post – Hawaii SCT In Aina Lea Case: The Rationales Behind The Opinion

2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference Banner - Credits

Registration is now open for the 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, to be held in downtown Honolulu on Thursday-Friday, January 15-16, 2015.

This is the bi-annual conference, co-chaired by U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies and land use lawyer Ben Kudo, that brings together the big names in our area of law. In other words, the one conference you don’t want to miss if you are a Hawaii land use or property lawyer, in-house counsel, a planner, an appraiser, a property owner or manager, or a law student interested in these topics. 

Download the full brochure here, or view it below. 

The keynote speaker this year is lawprof Richard Epstein, addressing “Stealth Takings: Exactions, Impact Fees and More.” Immediately following his talk, I will be moderating a panel on “Impact Fees and Exactions After Koontz,” with colleagues Bruce Voss and David Brittin. The rest…

Continue Reading Registration Open: 2015 Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, Jan. 15-16, 2015

This opinion from the Maryland Court of Appeals may be too land-usey for you takings mavens, but it starts off with an attention-getter:

Few cases inflame such deep passions as a dispute involving individual property rights. The belief that fundamental concepts of liberty entailed strong property rights informed and influenced the Founders as they undertook the epochal task of drafting our Constitution. See Sharon A. Rose, Kelo v. City of New London: A Perspective on Economic Freedoms, 40 U.C. Davis L. Rev, 1997, 2002 (2007). Infringers of these cherished rights should beware for “nothing is better calculated to arouse the evil passions of men than a wanton and unredressed invasion of their . . . property rights.” Cameron v. Chi., Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 65 N.W. 652, 655 (Minn. 1896).

Appellant, Marquis McClure, seeks our review of the decision of the Circuit Court for Montgomery…

Continue Reading Md App Waxes Poetic In A Land Use Opinion

Here are all of the amici briefs in support of the property owners/petitioners in Kurtz v. Verizon New York, Inc., No. 14-439 (cert. petition filed Oct. 14, 2014).

That’s the case in which the Second Circuit threw out a complaint on Williamson County ripeness grounds. Odd thing was that the court held that a procedural due process claim was not ripe under Williamson County‘s exhaustion of state remedies prong. But as we wrote here (and in our amicus brief for NFIB Small Business Legal Center), Williamson County is built on a takings-specific rationale: a federal takings claim is not ripe for federal court review until just compensation has been denied by the state (including a state court).

…
Continue Reading Amici Briefs In SCOTUS Due Process Ripeness Case – The End For Williamson County?

Here’s the Brief in Opposition filed by the city Kentner v. City of Sanibel, No. 14-404, the case asking the Supreme Court to review an 11th Circuit decision in which the court concluded that riparian rights, although recognized by Florida as property rights, are not “fundamental rights” protected by the Due Process Clause. The court concluded that the City’s ban on the construction of docks and piers (except, apparently, city-owned docks and piers) was not subject to due process review because the plaintiffs’ riparian rights are not fundamental rights because they are merely “state-created” rights. 

The property owners filed a cert petition, and we joined an amicus brief in support. Quite naturally, the BIO doesn’t agree with our view of the issues, and phrases the Questions Presented this way:  

(1) Whether a riparian landowner’s “qualified” right to construct a dock on adjoining state-owned submerged lands is a “fundamental&rdquo…

Continue Reading BIO In Riparian Rights Due Process Case

The Hawaii Supreme Court has issued a lengthy opinion in a case we’ve been following, DW Aina Lea Development, LLC v. Bridge Aina Lea, LLC, No. SCAP-13-0000091 (Nov. 25, 2014). 

The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other an administrative appeal, the latter being the case in which the Supreme Court just ruled.

The essence of the plaintiff’s allegations is that the State Land Use Commission wrongfully amended the land use boundaries from “urban” back to to “agriculture.” Many years earlier, the LUC had amended the boundary to urban on the condition that the owner provide a certain number of affordable units by 2006. In 2008, the developer had not fully done so and the LUC ordered it to show cause why the land classification should not revert to…

Continue Reading HAWSCT: Land Use Comm’n Can’t Rescind A Re-zoning Via Truncated Procedures

Check out this story from today’s Greensboro/Winston-Salem (NC) News-Record, “DOT’s long road to nowhere angers property owners” about the practice in North Carolina of using “protected corridors” to designate property under the state’s Transportation Corridor Official Map Act for future highway use, but then not condemning and paying for the land (while preventing the owners from making any use of it). 

We posted about the NC Supreme Court’s decision in one of those cases, where the court concluded that the property owners could not litigate it as a class action, but must do so in individual cases (800 of them!). Another post on the Map Act cases here (“Lines On A Map” Or Inverse Condemnation: How Long Can A Taking Be Only ‘Planned’ But Not Executed?“). 

The News-Record story is a good read, and a quick summary; recommended reading. It doesn’t hurt that the…

Continue Reading N.C.’s Map Act: Clouding Use By Condemnation On The “Long Road to Nowhere”