Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsRipenessTakingsSection 1983Land Useripenesstakingsjust compensation

Facts

Respondent acquired undeveloped portions of a residential subdivision after foreclosure and submitted plats seeking approval to develop the remaining property. The Williamson County Regional Planning Commission disapproved the proposed plat, citing multiple objections including density, slope, road, cul-de-sac, fire protection, access-road, and frontage problems. Respondent did not seek variances from the zoning or subdivision requirements, even though variances appeared available for at least several of the objections. Tennessee also provided an inverse condemnation procedure for obtaining compensation for an alleged taking, but respondent did not use it before filing this federal action.

Issue

Was respondent's federal claim ripe where it alleged that local land-use regulation temporarily took its property, even though the planning authorities had not made a final decision on permitted development and respondent had not sought compensation through available Tennessee procedures? More broadly, could the Court reach the merits of whether a temporary regulatory interference required compensation?

Rule

A claim that application of land-use regulations effects a taking is not ripe until (1) the government entity charged with applying the regulations has reached a final decision regarding how the regulations will be applied to the particular property, including through available variance procedures, and (2) the property owner has sought compensation through the procedures the State provides, if those procedures are adequate. Because the Fifth Amendment prohibits takings without just compensation, no constitutional violation occurs until just compensation has been denied.

🔒

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 40 acres outside Boise, Idaho, and seeks approval from the Ada Valley Planning Board to build a hillside subdivision. The board denies her sketch plan for excessive slope, inadequate frontage, and road-grade problems, but the local code allows written variance requests for each of those requirements. Nina immediately files a § 1983 action in federal court alleging a taking without just compensation.

Is Nina's federal takings claim ripe?

Explanation. A regulatory takings claim is not ripe until the government entity charged with applying the regulations has reached a final, definitive position on how the regulations apply to the property. Where available variances could alter what development is permitted, failure to seek them means there is no final decision. The majority distinguished this finality requirement from exhaustion of remedies under § 1983.