First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Property

482 U.S. 304 (1987)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyTakingsRegulatory TakingsJust CompensationFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentJust Compensation Clauseinverse condemnation

Facts

The church owned a 21-acre parcel known as Lutherglen, used as a campground and retreat center. After a fire denuded upstream land and subsequent flooding destroyed the camp buildings, Los Angeles County adopted an interim ordinance barring construction or reconstruction within a designated flood protection area that included Lutherglen's flat land. The church sued and alleged that the ordinance denied it all use of Lutherglen, seeking damages for that deprivation. California courts treated the allegation as legally irrelevant because state law limited the remedy for a regulatory taking to declaratory or mandamus relief rather than damages.

Issue

Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require compensation when a land-use regulation is alleged to deny all use of property for a period of time before the regulation is finally invalidated. More specifically, may a State constitutionally limit the remedy for such a temporary regulatory taking to nonmonetary relief alone?

Rule

The Just Compensation Clause is self-executing and requires compensation when government action has worked a taking of private property. Where a regulation denies a landowner all use of property for a period of time, invalidation of the regulation alone is not a sufficient remedy; the government must pay for the value of the use of the land during the period the taking was effective.

🔒

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.

After a wildfire near Santa Fe, New Mexico, Rio Mesa County adopted an emergency ordinance prohibiting any construction or reconstruction on all privately owned parcels within a mapped debris-flow corridor. Maya Ortiz owned a small retreat property entirely within the corridor and sued, alleging the ordinance left her with no use of the land for 30 months. A state court later agreed the ordinance had been unconstitutional but held that striking it down was her only remedy under state law.

If the ordinance in fact denied Maya all use of her property during those 30 months, which result is most consistent with the governing constitutional rule?

Explanation. The majority held that when a regulation denies a landowner all use of property for a period of time, the Just Compensation Clause requires compensation for that period. The Clause does not merely prohibit takings; it conditions them on payment. Thus, if the regulation already worked a taking, later invalidation does not erase the duty to pay for the period the taking was effective.