Agins v. City of Tiburon
447 U.S. 255 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A zoning ordinance constitutes a taking of property for which just compensation is required only if its mere enactment does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or it denies an owner economically viable use of his land.
Facts:
- Appellants acquired a five-acre parcel of unimproved land in the city of Tiburón, California, for residential development.
- The land was situated on a ridge and possessed magnificent views, making it some of the most valuable suburban property in the state.
- As required by state law, the City of Tiburón adopted new zoning ordinances to govern land use and preserve open space.
- These ordinances placed the appellants' property in a zone that restricted its use to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses.
- The density restrictions of the new ordinances permitted the appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their five-acre tract.
- The appellants never sought approval from the city for a development plan for their property under the new ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellants (landowners) filed a complaint against the City of Tiburón in California Superior Court, a state trial court.
- The complaint sought $2 million in damages for inverse condemnation and a declaration that the zoning ordinances were unconstitutional.
- The City of Tiburón filed a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a cause of action.
- The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the complaint.
- The landowners appealed to the California Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the ordinances were not a facial taking and that the landowners' sole remedies were mandamus and declaratory judgment, not damages.
- The appellants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere enactment of a municipal zoning ordinance that restricts land development to between one and five single-family residences on a five-acre tract constitute a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
No, the mere enactment of the zoning ordinance does not constitute a taking. A zoning ordinance is facially unconstitutional only if it fails to substantially advance legitimate governmental interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of their land. Here, the ordinances substantially advance the legitimate state interests of discouraging premature urbanization and protecting residents from the ill effects of development. The ordinances do not deny the appellants economically viable use of their land, as they are permitted to build up to five residences on their property, which preserves their reasonable investment-backed expectations. Because the appellants have not yet submitted a development plan, there is no concrete controversy regarding the application of the ordinances, and it cannot be said that the mere enactment of the ordinances has denied them the justice and fairness guaranteed by the Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision established a key two-part test for evaluating facial regulatory takings claims under the Fifth Amendment. It affirms that zoning is a legitimate exercise of police power and sets a high bar for landowners claiming a taking has occurred from the mere enactment of a regulation. The case also underscores the importance of the ripeness doctrine, indicating that a landowner must first seek a final decision on a development application before an 'as-applied' takings claim can be adjudicated. This framework forces courts to distinguish between regulations that merely diminish property value, which is not a taking, and those that extinguish all economically viable use.
Unlock the full brief for Agins v. City of Tiburon