Rieder v. State, Dept. of Transp.
535 A.2d 512, 221 N.J. Super. 547 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mere filing of a highway alignment preservation map by a government entity, which indicates the possibility of future condemnation, does not constitute a compensable taking of property. Such planning activity is not a taking, even if it impairs the property's marketability, so long as it does not deprive the owner of all beneficial use and a statutory mechanism exists for the owner to compel a decision on acquisition.
Facts:
- In 1969, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT) filed an alignment preservation map indicating the potential path for a new highway, Route 92.
- In the early 1970s, Solomon Rieder purchased property that was located within the boundaries of the filed alignment map.
- In August 1973, Rieder submitted an application to the Plainsboro Planning Board for a cluster residential development on his entire tract of land.
- After the Planning Board advised Rieder that a portion of his property was on the DOT's map, Rieder submitted an amended plan that excluded the affected portion, which the Township Committee subsequently approved in September 1973.
- In December 1983, Rieder submitted a new application to the Planning Board to develop the remaining portion of his property that was covered by the alignment map.
- The Planning Board informed Rieder his application was incomplete, and after he resubmitted it with additional data, the Board again rejected the application in July 1984 on the basis that it remained incomplete.
Procedural Posture:
- Solomon Rieder filed a complaint in lieu of prerogative writ in the Superior Court, Law Division, against the DOT, the Plainsboro Township Committee, and the Plainsboro Planning Board.
- The trial court granted summary judgment motions dismissing the claims against the Township Committee and the Planning Board, from which Rieder did not appeal.
- The DOT filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against it for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (R. 4:6-2(e)).
- The trial court judge granted the DOT's motion and dismissed Rieder's complaint against the DOT.
- Rieder, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his complaint against the DOT 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 a highway alignment preservation map by a state transportation agency, followed by a local planning board's rejection of a development application for the affected property, constitute a de facto taking requiring just compensation under the theory of inverse condemnation?
Opinions:
Majority - Baime, J.A.D.
No. The mere filing of a highway alignment preservation map does not constitute a compensable taking of property. The court reasoned that 'the mere plotting and planning in anticipation of [possible] condemnation' does not amount to a taking, as its purpose is to provide notice of potential future proceedings. Such a filing does not restrict the owner's use or limit future damages if condemnation occurs. The court distinguished this case from Washington Market Enterprises v. Trenton, where a declaration of blight destroyed all beneficial use of the property. Here, Rieder was not deprived of all beneficial use. Furthermore, any impairment of the property's market value incident to legitimate government planning is not a compensable taking. Crucially, it was the local Planning Board, not the DOT, that rejected Rieder's development plans. Rieder failed to use the available statutory remedy (N.J.S.A. 27:7-67(a)(1)) which would have forced the DOT to decide whether to acquire the property within a short, defined timeframe (a total of 165 days). The court concluded that it was Rieder's own 'dilatory conduct' and failure to pursue his legal remedies, not the DOT's map filing, that led to his inability to develop the land.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for what constitutes a 'taking' in the context of long-term government planning. It establishes that pre-condemnation activities, like filing alignment maps, are not takings per se, even if they negatively impact a property's market value. The ruling places a significant onus on property owners to utilize available statutory procedures to force a government agency's hand and to directly challenge adverse local land use decisions. By distinguishing between state-level planning and local-level permitting, the case protects the government's ability to engage in long-range infrastructure planning without incurring inverse condemnation liability for every affected parcel of land.
