Eminent Domain Report

On April 12, 2024, in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overruled more than two decades of California precedent, holding that legislatively established development impact fee programs must have an essential nexus and a rough proportionality to the impacts from the proposed development project on which they are being applied. The full ramifications of this ruling are still yet to be decided, however, as the Supreme Court left open the possibility of applying the nexus/proportionality tests in a more deferential manner when the development impact ...

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in George Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, agreeing to answer the question of whether legislatively enacted development impact fees are subject to a lower level of constitutional scrutiny than fees that are imposed by a permitting authority on an ad hoc basis. While this question has been presented to the Court multiple times over the last several decades, historically the Court has declined to take up the issue. Now, with the changing makeup of the Court, at least four justices appear willing to address the issue. … 

April 1st is an important milestone in California’s water year – marking the annual snowpack assessment and related drought determination. In the inaugural issue of Nossaman’s California Water Views – 2023 Outlook, our attorneys and policy advisors who are committed to the water sector identify the pivotal issues they’re watching now and for the year ahead.

Of particular interest to our readers, Brad Kuhn and Jillian Friess Leivas examine whether or not public agencies could face inverse condemnation liability for any flooding-related damages due to the recent storm ...

According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the answer is a definitive yes. 

Generally speaking, Pullman abstention permits a federal court to stay a federal claim to allow a state court to resolve a state issue that could either eliminate or narrow the scope of the federal claim. In order to invoke Pullman abstention, the federal claim must also touch on a sensitive area of social policy and involve an undecided question of state law.

In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, the Gearings asserted that under California’s Housing Crisis Act and California legislation passed ...

In Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), the Supreme Court reversed over three decades of precedent when it eliminated the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust state court remedies before pursuing a takings challenge in federal court.  After the Supreme Court’s decision, federal courts experienced a significant uptick in the number of federal takings lawsuits.  In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, the City was able to convince the federal court to take a back seat and allow a later-filed state court eminent domain action to proceed while the federal takings lawsuit was put ...

The California Coastal Act is a regulatory regime with many layers and complexities. Generally, however, the Act requires development within a designated coastal zone to obtain a coastal development permit. This permit may be issued by the local jurisdiction, the California Coastal Commission, or in rare cases, by both the local jurisdiction and the Coastal Commission. Even if the local jurisdiction has the authority to issue the permit in the first instance, the California Coastal Act may allow an aggrieved party to appeal the local jurisdiction’s decision to the California ...

In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, holding that in order for a dedication or exaction to pass constitutional muster, in addition to establishing an “essential nexus” between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition, the condition must be roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development.  More than two decades later, the County of El Dorado adopted Measure E.  Under Measure E, instead of allowing a developer to pay their fair share toward traffic improvements through a traffic impact fee program, a ...

With the recent flurry of coastal law bills before the California State Legislature and the myriad headlines advising that we must retreat from the shore, sea level rise (SLR) and related climate change topics remain front and center in California. Join our Water Industry Group on May 27, 2021 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. PT for "Living on the Edge: Managing Sea Level Rise in California" as we sort through the pending legislation and discuss the basis for this ever-increasing concern with the encroaching ocean.

Comprised of attorneys from Nossaman’s Water, Environment & Land Use and ...

Sea level rise is a critical issue facing public agencies and property owners throughout the United States. In California alone, this phenomenon could impact thousands of residences and businesses, dozens of wastewater treatment plants and power plants and hundreds of miles of highways, roads and railways. Last year, the California Legislature introduced a number of bills that proposed to address, or anticipate, or mitigate the impacts of sea level rise in California. Almost all of those bills, however, failed to make their way to the Governor’s desk. This year, the California ...

While there is a healthy debate over just how much the sea level will rise over the next 50 years, there is at least a general consensus that the sea level will rise.  What this means for those on the coast depends on the jurisdiction.  Some jurisdictions will attempt to armor the coast, protecting the structures that exist for as long as they can.  Others will pursue a policy of managed retreat, allowing the ocean to creep inward unabated.  In California, the Coastal Commission has expressed a preference for managed retreat.  However, because of the negative connotations associated with that ...

If you know someone with property that borders, is adjacent to, or abuts a natural lake, pond, bay, sea, or ocean, they may have littoral property rights. What that means is they may have the right to build a pier out to the line of navigability, a right to navigation, a right to accretion, and a right of access. I say “may” because these rights can be qualified rights, or simply nonexistent. Furthermore, determining whether such rights exist and, if you are lucky enough to have them, their extent can be a complicated endeavor. Then again, sometimes the analysis can be quite simple, such ...

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic a number of local jurisdictions throughout the country adopted ordinances freezing rents and prohibiting or limiting evictions. Not surprisingly, some landlords were not particularly pleased with these enactments, as they saw their properties occupied without the associated rental stream and still all the related carrying costs. In response, lawsuits were filed in federal and state court alleging that these enactments violated the federal and state constitution, including the takings clause. However, so far these arguments don’t ...

As you may recall, it wasn’t too long after Governor Newsom issued his executive order mandating the closure of certain businesses in California that the first takings lawsuit was filed. (See our coverage of Gondola Adventures, Inc. v. Gavin Newsom, U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:20-cv-03789 here.) That lawsuit alleged that the response by the state and county agencies to the COVID-19 situation violated the state and federal constitutions, and resulted in a partial or complete taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Notably, the case was voluntarily dismissed ...

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Knick v. Township of Scott (2019) 139 S.Ct. 2162 eliminated the requirement for a plaintiff to exhaust state court remedies before pursuing a takings challenge in federal court, there has been a significant uptick in federal lawsuits alleging a Fifth Amendment takings claim. For example, as we recently reported, a federal lawsuit was filed earlier this month alleging that the response by California agencies to the COVID-19 situation violated the state and federal Constitutions, and resulted in a partial or complete taking in violation ...

As first reported by our good friends at inversecondemnation.com, a lawsuit has been filed in California alleging that the response by state and county agencies to the COVID-19 situation violates the state and federal Constitutions, and results in a partial or complete taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The named defendants include Governor Newsom, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, the State Public Health Officer, county Public Health Officers, and county representatives throughout Southern California. The complaint alleges ...

Yes, but the sea might beat them to it. In 2015, the California Coastal Commission adopted the Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance. This Guidance document discusses a number of potential measures for responding to sea level rise, including "managed retreat." As explained in the Guidance document, "[r]etreat strategies are those strategies that relocate or remove existing development out of hazard areas and limit the construction of new development in vulnerable areas." Examples of retreat strategies include the acquisition and buy-out of "threatened" properties. While many ...

On November 25, 2019, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the public’s use of a road for more than half a century to access Martin’s Beach was permissive, and therefore “did not ripen into a public dedication that would give the public a permanent right to use the property.” (See our coverage of that decision here.) In so ruling, the Court handed a seemingly significant defeat to the plaintiff, a group entitled Friends of Martin’s Beach, and a significant victory to Vinod Khosla, the billionaire who purchased the 90 acres of beachfront property and the gated access road to ...

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The California Constitution contains a similar provision. Reading these constitutional provisions, one might reasonably assume that private property cannot be acquired for public use without just compensation. However, that assumption would be incorrect. In California, like many other states, private property may be acquired for public use without the payment of any compensation through an implied dedication. Whether there was or was ...

In a recent published decision, the California Court of Appeal had the opportunity to address this issue when the property owners of a beachside residence in the City of Los Angeles challenged a setback condition that the California Coastal Commission imposed on their proposed home remodel.  (See Greene v. Cal. Coastal Com. (Oct. 9, 2019) Case No. B293301.)

Background

Under the Coastal Act, property owners are required to obtain a Coastal Development Permit for “development” within the coastal zone.  “Development” is defined very broadly in the Coastal Act, and includes ...

For more than three decades, most property owners have been relegated to state courts when pursuing a takings claim against a state or local agency.  In a 5-4 decision issued this week, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself and opened the door to the federal courthouse, allowing property owners to bypass the state courts and file a Fifth Amendment takings claim in federal court in the first instance.  Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. __ (June 21, 2019).  What this eventually means for property owners, and the federal courts, only time will tell.  However, one can reasonably assume that ...

The California Coastal Act establishes another layer of regulation governing development in the Coastal Zone. Development under the Coastal Act is defined to encompass essentially everything and anything.  For example, under the Coastal Act development includes such things as a lot line adjustment, releasing fireworks on the 4^th of July, or putting up a No Trespassing sign.  While there are certain limited exemptions, in most cases individuals undertaking any development in the Coastal Zone must obtain a Coastal Development Permit.  In certain instances, the local agency’s ...

Last week, Jeremy Jacobs posted an interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. Jun. 22, 2015), and its potential application to Endangered Species Act (ESA) jurisprudence.  (See Raisin ruling seen as lifeline for endangered species, published by Greenwire on August 19, 2015).  In Horne, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that the forced appropriation of a portion of a farmer’s raisin crop qualified as a clear physical taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment to ...

2013 was a banner year for developers under the takings clause, as both the U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court issued decisions expanding the developers’ ability to challenge exactions as unconstitutional. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the essential nexus and rough proportionality standards that apply to government property exactions also apply to monetary exactions that are tied to a governmental approval. And in Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto, the California Supreme Court held that when a public ...

It depends.  A recent decision out of the Federal Circuit tackled this very issue, and the court's decision strongly suggests that a taking could arise under the right circumstances.  (Filler v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. Mar. 10, 2015) Case No. 2014-5117.)  As you probably already guessed by my use of the phrase "strongly suggests," both the lower court and the Federal Circuit in this case found that the plaintiff's challenge did not present the "right circumstances."

After sustaining a work-related injury, an employee of the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service visited the ...

The burning question, is why?  While this is not the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has ever granted a petition for review in the same case, it is certainly not common.  And, it is downright uncommon for the Supreme Court to grant a second petition for review when the central issue in the case is a takings issue.  So what is the Supreme Court planning to do?  Are they going to revisit their 2013 decision and find that they made a mistake, and that the Hornes are actually required to first bring their takings claim in the Court of Federal Claims?  Or, is the Supreme Court ...

In September 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District issued a surprising decision, finding that even if an applicant maintains that it is accepting imposed permit conditions "under protest" and expressly asserts that it plans to challenge those conditions in court, it waives any such challenge by building the approved project.  (Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 658.)  In reaching this conclusion, the majority found that the protest procedure provided in the Mitigation Fee Act was inapplicable because that Act does not ...

On November 24, 2014, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a proposed rule that would amend the regulations governing how Federal grant recipients acquire, manage, and dispose of real property.  Thus, the proposed rule, if it becomes final, has the potential to impact the daily operations of transportation agencies all across the United States.  Some of the more notable proposed revisions include:

• Broader authority for public agencies to proceed with construction contract bidding when the agency has not acquired all real property interests needed for the ...

The question now is, is the court's statement merely a bump in the road or a roadblock?  The United States filed the eminent domain action seeking to condemn certain access rights so it could increase its profitability when it sold vacant federal land in Alameda County, California.  In its complaint and declaration of taking, the United States alleged that it needed to condemn the property interest for the "continuing operations" of the Alameda Federal Center.  In support of the taking, the United States relied on the General Service Administration's general authority.  The federal ...

In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District rejected the California Coastal Commission's ("Commission") collateral estoppel argument and found that there is no rational nexus or rough proportionality between the work proposed by an applicant on a private residence a mile from the coast and a lateral public access easement imposed by the Commission as a condition of approval.  Accordingly, the easement condition amounted to an unconstitutional taking.  (Bowman v. Cal. Coastal Com. (Oct. 23, 2014).)

In 2002, the property owner of ...

Just in case you lost track of the Martins Beach saga, here is a quick summary and update.  According to reports, a couple of years after billionaire Vinod Khosla bought beachfront property in San Mateo County for over $30 million, his property manager locked a gate to a private access road on the property.  This access road, however, in addition to providing access to the property's residence, also had been used by the public to access Martins Beach (the parties do not agree as to whether the public use was permissive or under claim of right).

Following the gate closure, lawsuits have been ...

If you ask ten attorneys what keeps them up at night, at least six of them will recount nightmares about missing a filing deadline.  I know what you're thinking.  How hard can it be?  You just look in the Code, find the applicable limitations period, and then you're off.  However, as with all things law related, it very rarely is that simple.  In a recent decision issued by the Second Appellate District, the court explained why filing deadlines are not the only thing practitioners should have nightmares about.  In Excelaron, LLC v. County of San Luis Obispo

On June 10, 2014, President Obama signed into law the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, which, among other things, streamlines the U.S Army Corps of Engineers' infrastructure authorization process, accelerates project delivery, and authorizes federal funding for a variety of projects, including projects in California.  Among these California projects is the San Clemente Shoreline project, which includes construction and continuing maintenance of coastal protection measures along the San Clemente shoreline. 

Under the proposal that ...

In June of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Horne v. Department of Agriculture holding that California raisin handlers could assert a takings claim as an affirmative defense to an enforcement action filed by the United States.  I am happy to point out that in our analysis of the Supreme Court's decision, we explained that "[n]o court has yet found that the Hornes were subject to an unconstitutional taking; rather, the Supreme Court merely held that the jurisdictional argument relied on by the Ninth Circuit to avoid a decision on the merits was ...

As we reported last month, the United States of America and the Federal Aviation Administration had filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the City of Santa Monica in federal court seeking to confirm its alleged right to control the fate of the Santa Monica Airport.  Yesterday, the federal court threw out the City's lawsuit, holding that:

• The Quiet Title Claim was time-barred;
• The takings claim had to be brought before the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act; and
• The Tenth Amendment and Fifth Amendment Due Process Claims were not ripe.  

The federal court ...

As recently reported by Aaron Kinney of the San Mateo County Times, State Senator Jerry Hill is planning to introduce legislating requiring the California State Lands Commission to acquire the private property of a Silicon Valley billionaire.  According to the report, after buying beachfront property for $37.5 million, Vinod Khosla, whose net worth was estimated at $1.5 billion as of September 2013, decided to preclude the public from using a private access road leading to his property and the beach.  Some local residents were apparently upset by the closure ...

Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal answered a question that had been outstanding for almost two decades: What standard of review applies to beneficial spot zoning? In Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, that question was finally answered when the Court held that beneficial spot zoning will be valid only when the record demonstrates that the zoning is "in the public interest."

In 1996, Associate California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk stated in a concurring decision that although courts are traditionally deferential with respect to zoning ...

On July 6, 2012 President Obama signed into law MAP-21, which, among other things, contained new National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") requirements for the Federal Transit Administration ("FTA") and Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA").  Earlier this month, pursuant to a mandate in MAP-21, FTA and FHWA adopted new regulations governing the implementation of two new categorical exclusions.  The two new categorical exclusions apply to (1) projects within an existing right-of-way, and (2) projects receiving limited Federal funding.  

NEPA is the ...

On October 31, 2013, the City of Santa Monica filed a complaint in federal court against the United States of America and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") with the hope of confirming its alleged right to control the fate of the Santa Monica Airport.  Both sides agree that:  (i) the City leased the airport property to the United States in 1941 to support the war effort, (ii) the United States made substantial improvements to the property, (iii) the United States terminated the lease in 1948, (iv) the 1948 instrument terminating the lease contained a reversionary clause, and ...

In the second flooding decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the past two weeks, the court held that there was no physical taking because the property was never actually flooded and no de facto taking because no federal entity or regulation prohibited the plaintiffs from using their property.  (See Stueve Bros. Farms, LLC v. United States (No. 2013-5021, Dec. 11, 2013).)

In 1941, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the construction of the Prado Dam on the Santa Ana River near Corona, California.  Because the Army Corps anticipated that operation of ...

As you may recall, last December we reported on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that government-induced flooding of limited duration may be compensable.  (See Supreme Court Holds Temporary Flooding Can Be A Taking.)  The Supreme Court explained that the relevant factors in determining whether a temporary flooding rises to the level of a compensable taking include:  (i) the degree to which the invasion is intended or is a foreseeable result of authorized government action, (ii) the ...

Caltrans and the Amador County Transportation Commission have scheduled a public workshop for the proposed State Route 88 Pine Grove Improvements Project for tonight at 5:30 p.m.  The workshop will take place at the Pine Grove Town Hall, located at 19889 Highway 88, Pine Grove, California 95665.  The notice for the public workshop states that Caltrans and the County Transportation Commission have proposed "to modify State Route 88 through the Town of Pine Grove in order to reduce congestion, improve operations and enhance safety between the intersections at Climax Road and Tabeaud ...

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court decided one of two pending cases dealing with inclusionary housing, holding that when a public agency requires a developer to convey units at below market rates and make substantial cash payments, the developer may challenge these conditions under the California Mitigation Fee Act.  (Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto (Oct. 17, 2013) 2013 Cal. Lexis 8112.)  The California Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the scope of the Mitigation Fee Act, confirming that inclusionary in-lieu fees are subject to the essential nexus and rough ...

As reported by our colleague Robert Thomas on inversecondemnation.com, the California Supreme Court granted the California Building Industry Association's (CBIA) petition for review in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose.  The case will be the first test in California post-Koontz on whether the nexus/proportionality requirements apply to general regulations such as affordable housing exactions.

The CBIA filed the petition after the Court of Appeal for the Sixth Appellate District reversed and remanded the Superior Court's decision ...

I'll give you a hint, this is a bit of a trick question.  Give up?  Okay.  Whenever you name a State agency, of course. 

In Lavine v. State of California (pdf), a property owner filed a lawsuit after the Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted, and the California State Water Resources Control Board approved, a ban on on-site septic systems in Malibu.  (Case No. B238030, Aug. 20, 2013, Unpublished.)  The plaintiff owned a single-family residence in Malibu that utilized an on-site septic system; no public sewer system was available to residences in the area.  Although the ...

In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, a landmark decision (as Supreme Court decisions often are) that drastically slashed the number of federal takings claims.  In Williamson County, the Supreme Court held that courts lack jurisdiction over federal regulatory takings claims unless a final decision has been issued and the property owner has exhausted all "adequate State procedures."  The Supreme Court also clarified that exhaustion of adequate State procedures generally requires ...

The House of Representatives has once again resurrected the "Private Property Rights Protection Act" (HR 1944), a bill that would limit the power of eminent domain on a nationwide scale.  I say once again, because as we reported in 2012 (see January 26, 2012 post by Brad Kuhn), the House Judiciary Committee approved a nearly identical bill by an overwhelming 23-5 vote, only to have the bill languish on the House floor.  The vote this time around, however, was nowhere near as emphatic, as the bill barely passed out of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice with a skimpy 5-3 ...

An eminent decision out of the Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals is not a common occurrence.  A Ninth Circuit eminent domain decision dealing with intangible property is even less common.  Yet, on April 26, 2013, the Ninth Circuit took it even one step further, issuing an eminent domain decision dealing with intangible property in which the condemning authority is an Indian Tribe.

Having explained just how rare it is to see this type of decision, I now need to make a confession.  While the Ninth Circuit decision arises out of an eminent domain action in which an Indian Tribe is ...

As reported earlier today by a number of news outlets (see for example this KCET article by Chris Clarke), the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") will be issuing a Final Rule to facilitate right-of-way applications for lands with wind and solar energy development potential.  As explained in the press release issued by the BLM, in the past

"lands included in a proposed right-of-way [would] remain open to the location and entry of mining claims while the BLM" considered the application.

However, the Final Rule, which will be published in the Federal Register, permits the BLM to temporarily ...

What happens when a property owner unknowingly pays the electricity bill on a city-owned parking lot for over 15 years?  If you said nothing, then you get a gold star.

In Murphy v. City of Sierra Madre (pdf), a recent decision out of the Second Appellate District, the plaintiffs-appellants were the subsequent owners of a piece of property originally purchased from the City through a Disposition Development Agreement.  When the City originally transferred the property, it also mistakenly transferred an adjacent electrical meter for a City-owned parking lot.  As a result, from ...

On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed (pdf) the dismissal of a Fifth Amendment takings claim based on the finding that the claim was "not ripe."  The claim is unusual because it arose in the context of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Casitas Municipal Water District (Casitas) has a contract with the federal Bureau of Reclamation and a license with the State of California authorizing it to divert water for the Ventura River Project (Project).  The contract with the Bureau of Reclamation states that Casitas ...