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 ?
And once it is determined that, prior to the judgment, the petitioners possessed a clearly defined property right, and that after the judgment, they were divested of that right, then a regulatory taking has occurred.
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.
1992) (holding that such a restriction would effect a regulatory taking and therefore was invalid).
The concept of a regulatory taking, or technically "inverse
The plaintiff] has failed to establish that the CUP (conditional use permit) has any significant effect on his land, much less that it regulates its use in a manner that 'goes too far' and, therefore, amounts to a regulatory taking," the panel wrote.
Sebeliusthat Congress had a rational basis for enacting Section 6001, that PPACA does not constitute a real or regulatory taking, and that Section 6001 is clear enough to be constitutional.
This appears to be nothing more or less than the "character of the governmental action" which is the third of the three Penn Central tests the Supreme Court has declared for a regulatory taking, in respect to adjusting "the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.
A regulatory taking exists only when a regulation deprives an owner of all reasonable uses of his or her property.