Also known as: categorical per se takings · per se taking · categorical taking
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A categorical rule under the Takings Clause that automatically requires just compensation when government action completely eliminates all economically beneficial use of property or effects a permanent physical occupation. The rule treats such total deprivations like physical appropriations without regard to the government's purpose or the regulation's duration in most instances.
Camila Cervantes bought two oceanfront parcels intending to build homes. A state coastal statute then prohibited all permanent habitable structures on the lots. A trial court found the lots had no remaining economic value. The regulation effects a categorical per se taking because it wipes out all productive use.
Cedar Creek Farms owned shoreline property and planned immediate development. A regional agency imposed successive moratoria lasting thirty-two months while it prepared a land-use plan. The moratoria delayed but did not permanently eliminate all economic use, so they do not trigger a categorical per se taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Central Dynamics deposited client funds in an IOLTA account. State rules required the interest to be paid to a legal foundation rather than the firm. The compelled transfer of the interest constitutes a categorical per se taking of personal property.
Cassandra Cooper owned an apartment building. A city ordinance required landlords to permit installation of cable television equipment on rooftops for a nominal fee. The permanent physical occupation of even a small portion of the property is a categorical per se taking.
Carlos Castillo owned a mobile home park. A city rent-control ordinance limited pad rents and transferred substantial value to tenants upon sale of homes. The regulation does not effect a categorical per se taking because it regulates rates rather than authorizing a physical occupation.
Crown Pharmaceuticals grew and processed crops subject to a federal marketing order. The order required delivery of a portion of the crop to the government with only a contingent interest in later proceeds. The compelled physical appropriation of personal property is a categorical per se taking.
A regulation qualifies when it deprives the owner of all economically beneficial or productive use of land unless background principles of nuisance or property law already prohibited the use at the time of acquisition.
Supporting sources
No. Courts must weigh the duration of the restriction, the government's planning purposes, the owner's reasonable expectations, and effects on value to decide whether compensation is required.
Supporting sources
Any government-authorized permanent physical occupation, however small, is a per se taking, while most regulatory limits on use are evaluated under a multi-factor balancing test unless they eliminate all economic value.
Supporting sources
…compensation was required. Regulations that deny the owner of land all economically beneficial use of his property constitute a categorical taking for which compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment, unless the prohibited use interests were not part of the owner's title to begin with. The trial court's finding that the…