/BAK-ground PRIN-suh-puhlz of stayt PRAH-pur-tee law/·phrase
Also known as:background principle of state property law · background principles · Lucas background principles · state property law background principles
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Limitations inhering in the title to land under longstanding state nuisance and property doctrines that qualify the owner's rights at acquisition. A total regulatory deprivation of economic use does not require compensation when the prohibited activity was already barred by those principles at the time the owner took title.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Coastal Erosion Ban Upheld
Wade purchased a beachfront lot years earlier when homes were permitted. After severe storms, State W enacted an ordinance barring all new construction and rebuilding on erosion-prone parcels. The state showed that common-law nuisance principles already prohibited building that would accelerate harm to roads and neighboring properties. Because the ordinance merely codified those preexisting background principles, Wade receives no compensation despite the total loss of economic use.
Moratorium Leaves Temporary Use
Tahoe landowners held parcels for single-family homes when a regional agency imposed a multi-year building moratorium. The owners argued the delay eliminated all beneficial use during that period. The court held that background principles of state property law already distinguish temporary moratoria from permanent total wipeouts, so the moratorium did not trigger per se compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Hornbooks
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency535 U.S. 302
Post-Regulation Transfer Claim
Palazzolo acquired title to wetlands after the state had already enacted strict filling restrictions. He claimed the rules effected a total taking of economic use. The court rejected the claim because background principles of state property law include notice of existing regulations at the time of acquisition, so the owner never held an unencumbered right to develop.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island533 U.S. 606 (2001)
Chevron Rent Control Challenge
Chevron leased service-station sites in Hawaii subject to state rent-control statutes. It argued the controls destroyed the economic value of its property interests. The Court clarified that background principles of state property law determine whether a total regulatory deprivation requires compensation rather than any standalone test of economic impact alone.
Lingle, et al. v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.544 U.S. 528, 537 (2005)
Statutory Cause of Action Limits
Static Control sold components compatible with Lexmark printers. Lexmark sued under the Lanham Act for false advertising. The Court held that background principles of state property law limit the scope of protected interests an owner may assert, so only those interests recognized at acquisition may support a claim.
Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.572 U.S. 118, 127 (2014)
Beach Renourishment Ruling
Stop the Beach challenged a Florida court decision that treated beach restoration as an avulsion event vesting new dry land in the state. The owners claimed a judicial taking of their littoral rights. The Court held that the ruling was consistent with background principles of state property law governing accretion and avulsion, so no compensable taking occurred.
Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, et al.560 U.S. 702 (2010)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a total regulatory wipeout require compensation?+
A regulation that eliminates all economically beneficial use of land is a per se taking unless the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of state nuisance or property law at the time of acquisition. The exception prevents compensation for activities the owner never held as part of the title.
Supporting sources
Do background principles change with new scientific evidence?+
Yes. Common-law nuisance incorporates advancing knowledge of risks such as erosion or flooding. A regulation that codifies those updated understandings still qualifies as a background principle if the underlying harm was always recognized under state property law.
Supporting sources
Does post-acquisition purchase bar a Lucas claim?+
A purchaser who acquires title after a restriction is already in force is deemed to have notice of it. Background principles of state property law therefore include that existing limitation, defeating a claim that the regulation effects a total taking.
Supporting sources
505 U.S. 1003 (1992)Property
…rendered petitioner's lots valueless must be accepted, and the South Carolina Supreme Court must determine on remand whether any background principles of stateproperty or nuisance law would have prohibited the uses petitioner now intends. Pp. 1014-1032. (a) Early in this Court's takings jurisprudence, it was determined that government…