Inverse condemnation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Property law |
|---|
| Part of the common law series |
| Acquisition of property |
| Gift · Adverse possession · Deed |
| Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property |
| Alienation · Bailment · Licence |
| Estates in land |
| Allodial title · Fee simple |
| Life estate · Fee tail · Future interest |
| Concurrent estate · Leasehold estate |
| Condominiums |
| Conveyancing of interests in land |
| Bona fide purchaser · Torrens title |
| Estoppel by deed · Quitclaim deed |
| Mortgage · Equitable conversion |
| Action to quiet title |
| Limiting control over future use |
| Restraint on alienation |
| Rule against perpetuities |
| Rule in Shelley's Case |
| Doctrine of worthier title |
| Nonpossessory interest in land |
| Easement · Profit |
| Covenant running with the land |
| Equitable servitude |
| Related topics |
| Fixtures · Waste · Partition |
| Riparian water rights |
| Lateral and subjacent support |
| Assignment · Nemo dat |
| Other areas of the common law |
| Contract law · Tort law |
| Wills and trusts |
| Criminal Law · Evidence |
Inverse condemnation or regulatory taking are terms used in the law of real property to describe a situation in which the government has so heavily regulated the permissible uses of a specific piece of property as to make it unusable for any reasonable purpose. In the United States, the owner of such property is entitled to compensation for this taking under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, provided that they first exhaust all administrative appeals afforded by the regulating body.
[edit] External link
 |
This law-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
Inverse condemnation is a term that describes cases in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the constitutionally required just compensation, forcing the owner to sue to recover it. This is in contrast with the usual situation (direct condemnation) where it is the government that sues the owner to acquire his or her property and to have the courts fix the required just compensation.
Inverse takings (or in some states whose constitutions so provide) damaging of private property can take the form of physical seizures, retention of possession after a lease to the government expires, deprivation of access, deprivation of land support, causing landslides, flooding, or prolonged or otherwise unreasonable threats of condemnation that drive tenants away and otherwise blight the targeted property, often driving its owners into foreclosure. It can also occur where the government uses patents or copyrights without their owner's permission and without compensation.
The most controversial form of inverse condemnation occurs in cases where the government purports to regulate the subject property, but the regulation is so severe that it goes "too far," as Justice Holmes put it in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), and deprives the owner of the property's value, utility or marketability, denying him or her of the benefits of property ownership thus accomplishing a constitutionally forbidden de facto taking without compensation.
