regulatory taking


Also found in: Wikipedia.

regulatory taking

A legal theory that a particular government regulation has so adversely affected the value of real property as to amount to a condemnation of the property,for which the owner is entitled to compensation.There are two varieties: categorical and noncategorical takings. In order to establish a case of categorical taking,the Supreme Court has held that the property owner must show (1) that the land-use regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, and (2) that it denies an owner all economically viable uses of his or her land.These are both heavy burdens to overcome. A noncategorical taking does not require elimination of all economically viable uses of property, but does require a case-by-case analysis of the regulation regarding its character and nature, the severity of its economic impact, and the degree of interference with the property owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations.

Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Section A discusses the power of the federal and state judiciary to review the actions of executive agencies through the use of regulatory taking analysis and defining the scope of regulatory power.
A landowner who alleged a town land-use regulation that rendered her property unbuildable constituted a regulatory taking should not have had her claim decided by a jury, the Appeals Court has found in a case of first impression.
The court added that Pulte has no claim for a regulatory taking by the government because his interest in the property was subject to the "significant discretion" of the county's zoning authorities.
(41) And this, according to Midtown Ventures, constituted a regulatory taking of the TDRs.
Does the analysis differ if the acquisition is through a direct condemnation rather than a regulatory taking? And does the possibility of the owner assembling additional nearby properties affect the analysis?
Paradigmatically, a regulatory taking involves a government action that interferes with expectations about the content of property rights.
The company is asking the court to rule that it has suffered "inverse condemnation or regulatory taking," and that the city breached its leasing agreements and "committed fraud and/or negligent representation." The lawsuit asks for damages "in excess of the minimal jurisdictional limits" of the court.
1992) (holding that such a restriction would effect a regulatory taking and therefore was invalid).