First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County
482 U.S. 304 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a government regulation deprives a landowner of all use of their property, it constitutes a taking for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation, even if the regulation is later invalidated. The government must pay for the value of the property's use during the period the unconstitutional restriction was in effect.
Facts:
- In 1957, First English Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased a 21-acre property in a canyon, on which it operated a campground and retreat center called Lutherglen.
- In July 1977, a forest fire destroyed the watershed upstream from the property, creating a severe flood hazard.
- In February 1978, a major storm caused a flood that destroyed all of the buildings at Lutherglen.
- In January 1979, the County of Los Angeles enacted an interim ordinance that prohibited the construction or reconstruction of any building on Lutherglen's property due to the flood risk.
- The ordinance effectively denied the church all economic use of its property.
Procedural Posture:
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church sued the County of Los Angeles in California Superior Court (trial court), seeking damages in inverse condemnation for the alleged taking of its property by ordinance.
- The County moved to strike the allegation, arguing that under the California Supreme Court case Agins v. Tiburon, a landowner's sole remedy for a regulatory taking is invalidation of the ordinance, not damages.
- The Superior Court granted the motion to strike the takings claim and ultimately dismissed the complaint.
- The Church, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the takings claim, holding that it was bound by the Agins precedent.
- The California Supreme Court denied review.
- The Church then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
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 Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause require the government to pay damages for the temporary loss of property use caused by a land-use regulation that is ultimately determined to constitute a taking?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. The Fifth Amendment requires compensation when a land-use regulation temporarily deprives a landowner of all use of their property. The Just Compensation Clause is self-executing and mandates payment for takings, not merely the invalidation of the offending regulation. The Court reasoned that temporary regulatory takings that deny a landowner all use of their property are not different in kind from permanent takings. Drawing an analogy to cases involving temporary physical appropriation of property, which require compensation, the Court held that a government cannot escape its constitutional duty to pay for the period a taking was effective simply by later withdrawing the regulation. Invalidation of the ordinance is a constitutionally insufficient remedy because it fails to compensate the owner for the loss of use during the interim period.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The Fifth Amendment does not automatically require monetary compensation for the temporary effects of a regulation that might be a taking if left in effect permanently. The dissent argued that the majority improperly equated regulatory takings with physical takings, ignoring that the duration of a restriction is a critical factor in the regulatory takings analysis. The ordinance was a legitimate health and safety regulation enacted to prevent development in a dangerous flood zone, which likely would not constitute a taking at all. Furthermore, the delays caused by litigation over a regulation's validity are analogous to 'normal delays' in the land-use planning process, which are not compensable. The Court's decision, the dissent warned, would create a chilling effect on local governments, deterring them from enacting important and necessary public safety regulations for fear of incurring liability.
Analysis:
This decision established the landmark principle that 'temporary' regulatory takings are compensable under the Fifth Amendment. It significantly increased the financial risk for municipalities when enacting land-use regulations, as they could no longer avoid damages by simply rescinding an overly restrictive ordinance. The ruling empowered property owners by providing a damages remedy (inverse condemnation) for the period a regulation deprived them of their property's use. Consequently, the case has had a profound impact on land-use planning, forcing government bodies to more carefully weigh the economic impact of regulations against their public purpose to avoid costly litigation and liability.
Unlock the full brief for First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County