The development of regulatory takings theory has flourished over the past century thanks to efforts by the U.S. Supreme Court to fine-tune the appropriate tests and factors for nonphysical takings effected by land use regulation. Unfortunately, application and use of such tests have been seriously diminished by the ripeness barrier Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City raised for many property owners seeking relief for a valid regulatory takings claim. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Knick v. Township of Scott has been aptly described by some commentators as the most significant property rights case of the last decade. In Knick, the Court found the regulatory takings claim, which had not yet been denied compensation in state court, was ripe nonetheless. In doing so, the Court explicitly overturned the second prong of the so-called Williamson County ripeness test that required property owners to seek a remedy through state action—usually just compensation—for the alleged taking before coming to federal court.
Regulatory Takings After Knicksummarizes the Supreme Court’s decision in Knick and emphasizes total takings after Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission and the exceptions that permit the government to so strictly regulate property as to permit no economically beneficial use of it. Regulatory Takings explains the elements of these exceptions in great detail in separate chapters. Understanding these exceptions is critical to litigating about land use regulations for open space, agriculture, and preservation and conservation where the subject land is left without any economic use. If the exceptions apply, the landowner gets no compensation. If the exceptions do not apply, the landowner prevails. In Chapter 1, which follows, Regulatory Takings begins by providing an overview and analysis of regulatory takings law, together with recent trends in each.
