Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

505 U.S. 1003 LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL Cite 88112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992) 2887 regulation without requirement of compensa- tion to decide case in which property owner alleged that all economically viable use of his property was precluded by. South Carolina Beachfront Management Act, which barred him from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his land; in order to avoid paying compensation, state had to identify background principles of nuisance and prop- erty law that prohibited use as landowner presently intended in circumstances in which property was presently found. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 7. Eminent Domain e:>69 Where state seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically benefi- cial use, it may resist compensation only if logically antecedent inquiry into nature of owner's estate shows that proscnbed use in- terests were not part of his title to begin with.. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 8. Eminent Domain e:>69 In <<;>rder for state regulations prohibiting all economically beneficial use of land to be imposed without necessity of paying compen- sation to landowners, regulation must do no more than duplicate result that could have been achieved in the courts by adjacent land- owners or other uniquely affected persons under state's law of private nuisance, or by state under its complimentary power to abate nuisances that affect public generally, or oth- erwise. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 5. 9. Eminent Domain e:>llU Although state may elect to rescind reg- ulation which prohibits all economically bene- ficial use of land, and thereby avoid having to pay compensation for permanent deprivation of land, where regulation has already worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent action by government can relieve it of duty to provide compensation for period during which taking was effective. U.S.CA Const. Amend. 5. · The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Syllabus · In 1986, petitioner Lucas bought two residential lots on a South Carolina bamer island, intending to build single-farilily homes such as those on the immediately adjacent parcels. At that time, Lucas's lots were not subject to the State's coastal zone building permit requirements. In 1988, however, the state legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which barred Lucas from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his parcels. He filed suit against respon- dent state agency, contending that, . even though the Act may have been a lawful exer- cise of the State's police power, the ban on construction deprived him of all "economical- ly viable use" of his property and therefore effected a "taking" under the Fifth and Four- teenth Amendments that required the pay- ment of just compensation. See, e.g., Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.s. 255, 261, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 2141, 65 L.Ed.2d 106. The state trial court agreed, finding that the ban ren- dered Lucas's parcels "valueless," and e~-: tered an award exceeding $1.2 million.. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held it- self bound, in light of Lucas's failure. to . at- tack the Act's validity, to accept the legisla- ture's "uncontested .., findings" that new construction in the coastal zone threatened a valuable public resource. The court ruled that, under the Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8 S.Ct. 273, 31 L.Ed. 205, line of cases, when a regulation is designed to prevent "harmful or noxious uses" of property akin to public nuisances, no compensation is owing under the Takings Clause regardless of the regulation's effect on the property's value. Held: 1. Lucas's takings claim is not. ren- dered unripe by the fact that he may yet be able to secure a special permit to build on his property under an amendment to the Act passed after briefing and argument before See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321,337,26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.