The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, 6-3, that a six-year moratorium on land use development did not constitute a per se taking of property requiring just compensation under the Takings Clause. (Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency � [1]� ). Under Tahoe-Sierra, whether a moratorium on development constitutes a taking requires a fact-intensive ad hoc evaluation of the economic impact on the landowner, interference with reasonable investment backed expectations and the government interest. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the Court.
The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause bars the government from taking private property unless (1) for a public use and (2) the landowner is given just compensation. The Takings Clause has been incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby made applicable to state and local government. For the past century the most significant and difficult question facing the Supreme Court has been whether government regulation of property constitutes a taking.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
