Also known as:takings of property · property taking · property takings · takings · eminent domain taking
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A government appropriation of private property for public use that requires just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Courts evaluate regulatory actions by weighing economic impact on the owner, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Physical appropriations of real or personal property trigger per se treatment regardless of the public purpose served.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Landmark Ordinance Reduces Building Value
Tyler Taylor owns a mid-rise office building in a historic district. The city enacts an ordinance barring demolition and major alterations to preserve architectural character. The restriction cuts the property's market value by sixty percent and blocks Taylor's planned conversion into luxury condos. A court weighs the severe economic impact and frustrated expectations against the legitimate character of historic preservation and finds no compensable taking.
Raisin Set-Aside Program Takes Crop
Topaz Mining grows raisins under a federal marketing order. The government requires the company to deliver a percentage of each harvest to a government warehouse while retaining only a contingent interest in later export profits. Topaz Mining sues, claiming the compelled transfer appropriates personal property. The court holds that the direct appropriation of the raisins constitutes a per se taking requiring just compensation.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Restatements
Hornbooks
City Condemns Waterfront for Redevelopment
Talia Torres owns a waterfront warehouse. The city condemns the parcel and transfers title to a private developer as part of a comprehensive economic redevelopment plan expected to create jobs and increase tax revenue. Torres challenges the taking as lacking public use. The court upholds the condemnation because the project is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose even though the property ends up in private hands.
Kelo, et al. v. City of New London545 U.S. 469, 503 (2005)
Zoning Rule Limits Economic Use
Trevor Tate owns land subject to a zoning ordinance that sharply restricts the intensity of permitted development. The restriction prevents any economically viable use of the parcel. Tate claims the ordinance effects a taking by denying reasonable economic use of his land.
Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)
Regulation Burdens Commercial Operations
Travis Tate operates a medical facility. State rules impose new facility standards that require costly renovations and reduce the number of patients the clinic can serve. Tate contends the regulations destroy the economic value of the clinic property without compensation. The court examines whether the rules leave any viable economic use or instead amount to a taking of the business premises.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992)
State Limits Property Income Stream
Tabitha Taylor owns a building leased to a commercial tenant. A state statute imposes operational restrictions that force the tenant to close, eliminating the property's primary income stream. Taylor argues the law effects a taking by destroying the economic viability of the real estate. The court assesses whether the regulation leaves any reasonable beneficial use of the building.
Roe v. Wade410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What three factors guide regulatory takings analysis?+
Courts examine the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, the extent of interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action. Landmark preservation rules that leave an owner with reasonable beneficial use generally do not require compensation.
Does the Takings Clause protect personal property?+
Yes. When the government appropriates personal property such as crops under a marketing program, it effects a per se taking even if the owner retains a contingent interest in the goods. Just compensation is required.
When does transfer of condemned property to a private developer satisfy public use?+
A taking satisfies the public use requirement when it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose such as economic redevelopment. Comprehensive plans that assemble land for private development can qualify if the government reasonably believes the project will benefit the public.
410 U.S. 113 (1973)Constitutional Law
…guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly…