You are on page 1of 1

Essential Nexus: In order for the regulation to substantially advance legitimate state interests,

there must be a fairly tight fit between the state interest being promoted and the regulation
chosen (more than a mere “rational relation” between means and end)
Ex. The Ps, owners of beach front property, want to replace their bungalow with a larger
home. D, a government body that regulates beach front construction, pevents the Ps from doing
the rebuilding unless the Ps first given an easement across the property along the ocean, which
would permit people to walk along the beach from the north of P’s property to the south and vice
versa. D claims easement needed to prevent public views of the beach from being worsened.
HELD: for the Ps. The government may have had an interest in encouraging public views
of the beaches, but the easement requirement wasn’t substantially related to the achievement of
that objective, because the easement would only help those already on the beach (who already
had great views).  Nollan v. California Coast Comm.

Rough Proportionality for Give Backs: When a city conditons the owner’s right to develop his
property on some return by the owner, there must be a rough proportionality between the burdens
on the public that the development would bring about, and the benefits to the public from the
give-back,
Ex. Owner wants to expand her store. City says, “You may do that, but only if you deed
to the public a 15 ft strip of land to be used as a bike pathway.” Held: This trade-off was
unconstitutional taking of Owner’s property, because City didn’t show that the public burdens
from the extra traffic to Owner’s bigger store were “roughly proportional” to the public benefits
from the bike path. (Dolan v. City of Tigard)

1. Deprivation of ALL Economically Viable Use: If a regulation is found to deny the


landowner of all economically viable use of his land, then taking.
Ex. Regulations prevent a particular owner of a vacant land from building any
structure on property. Probably deprives him of all economically viable use, and will thus
be a compensable taking unless necessary to serve some overriding gov’t interest (such as
prevention of flooding or erosion—Lucas)
2. Physical Occupation: If the government makes or authorizes a permanent physical
occupation of the property, this will automatically constitute a taking
Ex. State orders O to give the public a permanent easement across his property so
that they can get to beach—this would be a permanent physical occupation – a taking
3. Diminution in Value: The more drastic the reduction in value of the owner’s value, the
more likely a taking is to be found.
Ex. Particular land is valuable mostly for the coal found under it. The state bars
the owner of the mineral rights from doing any coal mining under the land.
Held: The value of the mining rights was so completely impaired as to
amount to a taking
4. Prevention of Harm: A taking will probably NOT be found where the property use
being prevented is one that is harmful or noxious to others.
Ex. A zoning ordinance may properly prevent the operation of a steel mill in the
middle of a residential neighborhood