In our last episode for Property, we look a bit more at the question of regulation and the “denominator problem”, as well as looking at a third categorical rule. This rule is that regulations that de-value property into inutility are always a taking, unless justified by background principles of common law nuisance.
Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
Sometimes what appears to be a normal regulation threatens to regulate property into valueless inutility. How far is too far, triggering a taking? And can nuisances be regulated out of existence without paying just compensation?
Hadacheck v. Sebastian
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
In this episode we discuss (albeit briefly) some of the questions to keep in mind when trying to determine what “just compensation” is or should be. We will also begin looking at the question of when has a taking actually taken place, examining a categorical rule involving permanent physical occupations.
Riggs v. Township of Long Beach
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
We begin our final topic in this feed: Takings. We’ll define briefly what a taking is, what textual limits the 5th Amendment places on these takings, and try to define what a “public use” is.
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff
Kelo v. City of New London
In our final episode on zoning, we discuss the concept of spot zoning, or where a single area (allegedly) has its zoning changed for an improper purpose.
State v. City of Rochester
In our third episode on zoning, we move to variances and special exceptions. Variances are when the zoning code is not strictly applied to avoid undue hardship, while a special exception is when a use is generally allowable, but requires sign-off from the zoning board.
Commons v. Westwood Zoning Board of Adjustment
Cope v. Inhabitants of the Town of Brunswick
We continue our discussion of zoning by focusing on the noncomforming use. A noncomforming use is one that was legal before a zoning ordinance took effect, but is now outside of the appropriate zone. The concept of amortization (giving a deadline for shutting down the noncomforming use, after reasonable recoupment of investment) is also discussed.
PA Northwestern Distributers, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board
We turn our attention from private land controls to public land controls. Specifically, we will be looking at a concept called zoning, the constitutionality of which was upheld by this episode’s case.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.
We continue and conclude our discussion of servitudes by focusing on the touch and concern requirement.
Neponsit Property Owners’ Association, Inc. v. Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank
Caullett v. Stanley Stilwell & Sons, Inc.
A servitude is a generic term for negative easements, real covenants, and equitable servitudes. Servitudes impose restrictions and burdens on land owners, while also bringing a reciprocal benefit. Most homeowner association regulations are enforced via servitudes.
Tulk v. Moxhay
Sanborn v. McLean