Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 · Property

PropertyConstitutional Lawregulatory takingstotal wipe outcategorical rulebackground principlesTakings ClauseFifth Amendment

Facts

In 1986, Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms intending to build single-family homes. In 1988, South Carolina enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which barred Lucas from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. The trial court found that the prohibition rendered the lots valueless, deprived Lucas of any reasonable economic use, and permanently banned construction on them. At the time Lucas bought the lots, they were zoned for single-family residential construction and were not subject to such building restrictions.

Issue

Whether a land-use regulation that denies an owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land effects a taking requiring just compensation even if the State enacted the regulation to prevent serious public harm. Relatedly, may the State avoid compensation by asserting that the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of state property or nuisance law?

Rule

When a regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land, it constitutes a categorical taking requiring just compensation unless the proscribed use interests were not part of the owner's title to begin with because background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance already prohibited them. A legislature's mere declaration that a regulation prevents harmful or noxious use does not by itself defeat compensation.

🔒

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 owns a small parcel on the edge of a desert preserve outside Tucson, Arizona. A new state statute bars all building, farming, grazing, mining, leasing, and commercial access on the parcel forever, and a trial court finds the land now has no market value and no economically productive use.

If Arizona defends the statute solely by arguing that it preserves scenic beauty and open space for the public, what is the strongest argument for Nina?

Explanation. Under the majority rule, when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land, it is a categorical taking requiring compensation unless the state shows the forbidden uses were not part of the owner's title to begin with because background principles of state property or nuisance law already prohibited them. A legislature's assertion that the law preserves open space or serves the public interest is not enough by itself.