Skip to main content
Home
Home

California Land Use & Development Law Report

tree in grassy meadow

California Land Use & Development Law Report

California Land Use & Development Law Report offers insights into legal issues relating to development and use of land and federal, state and local permitting and approval processes.

Placeholder image
January 6, 2021 Takings

Condemnee Need Not Entirely Vacate Premises to Recover Damages After Condemnation is Abandoned

Complete physical dispossession of a property is not a prerequisite to an award of damages after a condemnation proceeding is abandoned—moving from the property in reliance on the order granting the agency possession is sufficient. San Joaquin Regional Transit District v. Superior Court, No. C084755 (3rd Dist., Dec.

View blog post
Placeholder image
September 2, 2020 Takings

Condemned Property Not Used Within Ten Years Must Be Offered for Sale to Original Owner

The City of Los Angeles was required to offer to sell condemned property back to its original owner because the property had not been used and the City Council did not adopt a resolution reauthorizing the public use until 19 days past the 10-year statutory deadline. Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles, No. B297655 (2nd Dist., July 30, 2020).

View blog post
Placeholder image
June 29, 2020 Takings

Judgment Against Prior Owners Fixed Tidelands Boundaries, Barring Plaintiffs’ Quiet Title and Inverse Condemnation Claims.

The court of appeal held that plaintiffs' inverse condemnation and damages claims based on dredging in the bay adjacent to their properties was barred under the doctrine of res judicata based on a 1931 judgment conclusively establishing that the property alleged to have been taken or damaged was not owned by plaintiffs.

View blog post
Placeholder image
June 15, 2020 Takings

Reclassification of Land From Urban to Agricultural Did Not Result in Unconstitutional Regulatory Taking

The State of Hawaii Land Use Commission's reversion of 1,060 acres from a conditional urban land use classification to the prior agricultural use classification was not an unconstitutional taking because the landowner could still reap economic benefits from the property, the reclassification did not substantially affect the overall valuation or any potential sales, and the landowner should have

View blog post
Home
Jump back to top