Agins v. City of Tiburon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Property

447 U.S. 255 (1980)

Overruled by Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2004)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakingsZoningLand use regulationFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendmentjust compensationpolice power

Facts

After appellants bought five acres of unimproved land in Tiburon for residential development, the city adopted zoning ordinances placing the property in an RPD-1 Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone. Under the ordinances, the property could be used for one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, and density restrictions permitted between one and five single-family residences on the tract. Appellants did not submit any development plan for approval under the ordinances. They instead alleged that the rezoning prevented residential development and destroyed the property's value, and they sought damages and a declaration that the ordinances were unconstitutional on their face.

Issue

Whether the mere enactment of Tiburon's zoning ordinances, without any submitted development plan or as-applied dispute, took appellants' property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, whether these facially applicable land-use regulations constituted a taking of the five-acre tract.

Rule

The application of a general zoning law to particular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land. When an owner has not sought permission to develop property as the ordinance allows, the court addresses only whether the mere enactment of the ordinance is a taking, not hypothetical applications of the ordinance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel bought 12 acres of vacant land in Asheville, North Carolina, intending to build homes. The city later rezoned the tract to allow only single-family dwellings, accessory structures, and open-space uses, with a maximum of three homes subject to site-plan approval. Nina filed suit immediately, never submitting any development proposal, and alleged the ordinance took her property on its face.

How should a court most likely analyze Nina’s takings claim?

Explanation. When the owner has not sought permission to develop property as the ordinance allows, the court considers only whether enactment itself constitutes a taking, not hypothetical future applications. A facial zoning challenge does not become ripe as an as-applied dispute merely because the owner alleges loss of value. The governing inquiry is whether the ordinance substantially advances legitimate state interests or denies economically viable use.