Summary: Friday, August 10, 2012 If the public changes its mind about a land use approval, and vested rights exist, then a property owner or developer may sue the public agency concerned, and say that the public has “taken” its property. If “vested rights” exist, the property owner or developer will win. But here’s the basic rule about “takings.” Absent vested rights, an unconstitutional “taking” of private property by way of a land use regulation only occurs if the public decision deprives the property owner of all economically feasible uses of its property. If the developer wants to build 100 new homes, and the zoning says that’s OK, but then the public changes the zoning, and says that the particular land can only be used for five new homes, that will probably not be a “taking,” absent “vested rights.” While the property owner won’t make as much money with five homes as with 100, there is still an economically feasible use of the property. Property owners can always “ask” for what they want, and maybe the public will “give approval” for what the property owner asks. However, you don’t have a constitutional right to any particular approval. The Constitution says that “taking” all economic uses from a property owner requires payment of just compensation. But there is no constitutional protection for “givings.” Permissions given can be taken away, if the public changes its mind. More Information: Gary Patton’s Two Worlds Blog LandWatch Pamphlet on “Takings” Law
