447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980)
After the appellants acquired five acres of unimproved land in the city of Tiburón, California, for residential development, the city was required by state law to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open-space land.1 In response, the city adopted two ordinances that modified existing zoning requirements and placed the appellants’ property in an RPD-1 Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone.2 Density restrictions permit the appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their five-acre tract.3 The appellants never sought approval for development of their land under the zoning ordinances.4 Shortly after it enacted the ordinances, the city began eminent domain proceedings against the appellants’ land, but the following year the city abandoned those proceedings and its complaint was dismissed, with the appellants reimbursed for costs incurred in connection with the action.5
The appellants filed a two-part complaint against the city in State Superior Court.6 The first cause of action sought two million dollars in damages for inverse condemnation.7 The second cause of action requested a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional.8 The complaint alleged that land in Tiburón has greater value than any other suburban property in the State of California.9 The ridge-lands that appellants own possess magnificent views of San Francisco Bay and the scenic surrounding areas and have the highest market values of all lands in Tiburón.10 The appellants contended that rezoning forever prevented development for residential use and completely destroyed the value of the property for any purpose or use whatsoever.11 The appellants also contended that the city's aborted attempt to acquire the land through eminent domain had destroyed the use of the land during the pendency of the condemnation proceedings.12
The city demurred, claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action.13 The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, granting the appellants leave to amend the cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment, but the appellants did not avail themselves of that opportunity.14 The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.15 The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1980.16
Whether municipal zoning ordinances took appellants’ property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?17
The application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land.18 The determination that governmental action constitutes a taking is, in essence, a determination that the public at large, rather than a single owner, must bear the burden of an exercise of state power in the public interest.19
No. The zoning ordinances substantially advance legitimate governmental goals.20 The State of California has determined that the development of local open-space plans will discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses.21 The specific zoning regulations at issue are exercises of the city's police power to protect the residents of Tiburón from the ill effects of urbanization.22 The ordinances place appellants’ land in a zone limited to single-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, and permit between one and five residences on the five-acre tract.23
Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of appellants’ land nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership.24 The appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to local officials.25
The zoning ordinances on their face do not take the appellants’ property without just compensation.26