concluding that the property owner, who alleged a “taking” claim, had not met the finality requirement, even though the planning commission denied the landowner’s sole subdivision proposal and the county board of supervisors affirmed because the tentative subdivision map was inconsistent with the general county plan and with specific zoning regulations; the record held open “the possibility that some development [would] be permitted”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the property owner, who alleged a “taking” claim, had not met the finality requirement, even though the planning commission denied the landowner’s sole subdivision proposal and the county board of supervisors affirmed because the tentative subdivision map was inconsistent with the general county plan and with specific zoning regulations; the record held open “the possibility that some development [would] be permitted”
- explaining that “[a] court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone ‘too far’ until it knows how far the regulation goes,” which requires “a final and authoritative determination” of how the regulation will be applied to the property in question
- holding that court could not determine whether a “taking” had occurred in absence of final and authoritative determination by county, even though county planning commission rejected plaintiffs proposal to subdivide property
- holding that an “essential prerequisite” to the assertion of a takings claim “is a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the subject property”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Justice Powell joins, dissenting.
I agree with Justice White that the Court of Appeal’s opinion is best read as rejecting appellant’s allegations as a matter of substantive takings law; that appellant sufficiently alleged a final decision denying it all beneficial use of its property; that a land use regulation restricting the use of property may amount to a taking; and that the allegations here are sufficient to state a takings claim. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, and III of his dissenting opinion. As Justice White recognizes in Part IV of his opinion, the questions surrounding what compensation, if any, is due a property owner in the context of “interim” takings are multifaceted and difficult. I would not reach these questions without first permitting the courts below to address them in light of the fact that appellant has sufficiently alleged a taking.