MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Property

PropertyRegulatory TakingsLand Usetakingsregulatory takingfinal decisionripenessinverse condemnation

Facts

In 1975, appellant submitted a tentative subdivision map to Yolo County proposing to subdivide its property into 159 single-family and multifamily residential lots. The Yolo County Planning Commission rejected the plan, and the County Board of Supervisors affirmed, citing lack of adequate public street access, absence of sewer service by a governmental entity, insufficient police protection, and inadequate provision for water service. Appellant then filed this action seeking declaratory and monetary relief, alleging that appellees had effectively restricted the property to open-space agricultural use and appropriated its entire economic use. At the same time, appellant filed a separate mandate action, still pending, seeking to set aside the Board's decision and require reconsideration of the subdivision proposal.

Issue

Whether rejection of appellant's subdivision proposal constituted a taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, whether the Court could reach that question when the landowner had not obtained a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development permitted on the property.

Rule

A regulatory takings claim is not ripe unless the property owner has obtained a final and authoritative determination of the type and intensity of development legally permitted on the property. A court cannot determine whether regulation has gone 'too far,' or whether compensation is just, until it knows what use, if any, may be made of the affected property and what compensation, if any, the responsible body will provide.

🔒

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.

Lena Ortiz owns 40 acres outside Boise, Idaho. She submits a plan to Raven Creek County seeking approval for a 220-unit townhouse project, and the county denies the application because the plan lacks adequate road access and public utility commitments; the county has not ruled on any lower-density alternative.

If Lena immediately files a federal takings action alleging the denial destroyed all economic use of her land, what is the strongest argument that the claim is not ripe?

Explanation. A regulatory takings claim is not ripe until there is a final and authoritative determination of the development actually permitted. Denial of one intensive proposal does not itself show that all valuable development is barred, so a court cannot yet tell how far the regulation goes as applied to the land. (Derived from MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County (n.d.).)