Rieder v. State, Dept. of Transp.
221 N.J. Super. 547, 535 A.2d 512 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere filing of an alignment preservation map by a government agency, which indicates a potential future public project on private property, does not constitute a compensable taking or inverse condemnation. Such planning activities, even if they result in a diminution of the property's market value, do not amount to a taking absent a substantial destruction of the property's beneficial use.
Facts:
- On December 4, 1969, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) filed an alignment preservation map indicating the proposed route for State Highway 92.
- In the early 1970s, Solomon Rieder purchased a tract of land, a portion of which was covered by the DOT's map.
- In August 1973, Rieder submitted a residential development application to the Plainsboro Planning Board for his entire property.
- The Planning Board informed Rieder that part of his property was located within the proposed highway alignment.
- Rieder subsequently submitted an amended development plan that excluded the portion of his property on the DOT's map, which the Planning Board and Township Committee approved in September 1973.
- On December 1, 1983, Rieder submitted a new application to the Planning Board to develop the remaining portion of his property that was covered by the highway map.
- On July 16, 1984, the Planning Board rejected Rieder's application, stating that it was incomplete.
Procedural Posture:
- Solomon Rieder filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court, Law Division (a state trial court) against the Plainsboro Township Committee, the Planning Board, its individual members, and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT).
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Township, Planning Board, and its members, from which no appeal was taken.
- The DOT filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The trial judge granted the DOT's motion to dismiss.
- Rieder (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claim against the DOT (defendant-respondent) to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
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 filing of an alignment preservation map by the Department of Transportation, showing the potential route for a new highway across a landowner's property, constitute an inverse condemnation for which the landowner is entitled to just compensation?
Opinions:
Majority - Baime, J.A.D.
No, the filing of an alignment preservation map by the Department of Transportation does not constitute an inverse condemnation. The mere plotting and planning in anticipation of a possible future condemnation, without any actual physical appropriation or interference with the owner's beneficial use, is not a compensable taking. The court reasoned that the filing of the map served as public notice and did not, by itself, restrict the owner's use or improvement of the land. Any resulting impairment of marketability is an incidental effect of legitimate government action and is not compensable. The court distinguished this case from situations where government action destroys all beneficial use of a property, noting that Rieder was not deprived of such use. Crucially, the court pointed out that it was the local Planning Board, not the DOT, that rejected Rieder's development application. Rieder failed to pursue his legal remedies, such as challenging the Planning Board's decision or using a statutory provision to force the DOT to decide whether to condemn the property. The court concluded that Rieder's own 'dilatory conduct,' not the DOT's map filing, was the source of his inability to develop the property.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for what constitutes a regulatory taking, distinguishing between mere government planning and actions that effectively destroy a property's value. It reinforces the principle that a diminution in market value caused by the prospect of future condemnation is not, by itself, a compensable taking. The case serves as a crucial reminder to property owners that they must exhaust available statutory remedies and challenge adverse local land use decisions in a timely manner, rather than allowing damages to accrue and later seeking compensation through an inverse condemnation claim. This ruling limits the liability of government agencies during the long-term planning phases of public projects, protecting them from claims based on speculative or preliminary actions.
