Inverse condemnation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Property law

Part of the common law series
Acquisition of property
Gift · Adverse possession · Deed
Lost, mislaid, or abandoned
Treasure trove
Alienation · Bailment · License
Estates in land
Allodial title · Fee simple · Fee tail
Life estate · Defeasible estate
Future interest · Concurrent estate
Leasehold estate · Condominiums
Conveyancing of interests in land
Bona fide purchaser
Torrens title · Strata 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 is a term used in the law to describe a situation in which the government takes private property but fails to pay the just compensation required by the Constitution. In order to be compensated, the owner must then sue the government. In such cases the owner is the plaintiff and that is why the action is called inverse -- the order of parties is reversed, as compared to direct condemnation where the government is the plaintiff who sues a defendant-owner to take his property.

The taking can be physical (i.e. land seizure, flooding, retention of possession after a lease to the government expires, deprivation of access, removal of ground support) or it can be a regulatory taking (when regulations are so onerous that they make it unusable by the owner for any reasonable or economically viable purpose). The latter is the most controversial form of inverse condemnation. It is considered to occur when the regulation of the property's use 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 the benefits of property ownership thus accomplishing a constitutionally forbidden de facto taking without compensation.

An inverse taking need not be a taking of land or rights in land (such as easements). It can be a taking of personal property (e.g. supplies for the army in wartime), intellectual property (such as patents and copyrights), as well as contracts. It can also extend to temporary or permanent interference with activities such as the conduct of a business at a location or even the quiet enjoyment of the property whether the underlying real property is owned by the business operator.