Also known as: reasonable & beneficial use · reasonable beneficial use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An economically viable utilization of land that generates a reasonable return for the owner. Preservation regulations that leave an owner with such a use while advancing legitimate public interests do not effect a compensable regulatory taking.
Redwood Bank purchased several aging warehouses intending to demolish them for high-rise towers. After acquisition the city designated the corridor a heritage district and barred demolition while allowing renovation and commercial leasing. The bank can still generate steady rental income from the renovated structures. Because the ordinance preserves a reasonable beneficial use and serves a legitimate preservation goal, no compensable taking occurs.
Metro Hoops LLC acquired an aging downtown arena planning to replace it with a modern stadium and retail complex. The city then designated the arena a historic landmark and prohibited demolition or major exterior changes. Metro Hoops can continue hosting games and events in the existing facility and earn a profit, though less than projected from redevelopment. The retained ability to operate the arena for its primary purpose constitutes a reasonable beneficial use that prevents a taking finding.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
It serves as a key factor showing that a land-use regulation has not gone too far. When an owner retains the ability to generate meaningful economic returns from the property, courts typically conclude that no compensable taking has occurred even if the regulation blocks a more profitable plan.
Supporting sources
No. The inquiry focuses on whether all or nearly all economically viable use has been eliminated rather than whether the single most lucrative project was blocked. Retention of a lesser but still profitable use defeats the claim.
Supporting sources
When the regulation is a generally applicable preservation measure that advances a legitimate public interest and leaves the owner with continued productive use, the character factor weighs strongly against finding a taking.
Supporting sources
…and therefore that appellants could sustain their constitutional claims only by proof that the regulation deprived them of all reasonable beneficial use of the property. The Appellate Division held that the evidence appellants introduced at trial—“Statements of Revenues and Costs,” purporting to show a net operating loss for the years 1969…