Also known as: private properties
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A possessory interest in land or chattels that the government may not appropriate for public use without providing just compensation to the owner.
Pearl Porter operates a pharmaceutical plant. The EPA orders her to deliver a fixed portion of each production run to a government warehouse at no charge. Pearl retains only a contingent interest in later export profits. The direct appropriation of her inventory constitutes a taking of private property requiring just compensation.
Priya Prasad owns a rental building. The city ordinance requires her to permit permanent installation of cable equipment in each unit for a nominal fee. The physical occupation appropriates a portion of her private property and requires just compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Philip Powell owns oceanfront land. The commission conditions a building permit on his granting a public access easement across the property. The exaction appropriates a portion of his private property without just compensation.
Pilar Pena owns a historic terminal. The city designates the structure a landmark and forbids demolition or major alterations. The regulation substantially interferes with her distinct investment-backed expectations in the private property.
Paula Pierce owns land near an airfield. Frequent low-altitude military flights substantially impair the property's utility and enjoyment. The government activity effects a taking of her private property requiring just compensation.
Preston Pratt seizes cargo during wartime operations. The government claims title to the captured goods as prize. The direct appropriation of private property in the seized items requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
Yes. The Fifth Amendment protects private property against government appropriation without just compensation. This protection extends to personal property such as inventory and equipment.
Supporting sources
A condition effects a taking unless an essential nexus exists between the exaction and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify permit denial. The exaction must also be roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development.
Supporting sources
No. Regulations that substantially advance legitimate state interests and leave economically viable use of the property do not effect a taking. Courts apply a multi-factor balancing test considering economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action.
Supporting sources
Yes. Destruction ordered to prevent serious public harm such as the spread of disease does not require compensation when the state acts under emergency or public necessity.
…the Appellate Division and upheld the law. This Court noted probable jurisdiction. II The Fifth Amendment provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." It is well settled that the government may impose regulations on private property that substantially advance legitimate…