United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

EMINENT DOMAIN

Information about Its 

Uses and Effect on 

Property Owners and 

Communities Is 

Limited 

November 2006 

GAO-07-28 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2006

EMINENT DOMAIN

Information about Its Uses and Effect on 

Property Owners and Communities Is 

Limited 

Highlights of GAO-07-28, a report to 

congressional committees 

In the Transportation, Treasury,

Housing and Urban Development,

the Judiciary, the District of

Columbia, and Independent 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, 

Congress mandated that GAO 

conduct a nationwide study on the 

use of eminent domain by state and 

local governments. This report 

provides information on (1) the

purposes for and extent to which

eminent domain can be and has 

been used; (2) the process states

and select localities across the

country use to acquire land, 

including by eminent domain; (3)

how the use of eminent domain has

affected individuals and

communities in select localities; 

and (4) the changes state 

legislatures made to laws governing 

the use of eminent domain from 

June 2005 through July 2006. 

To address these objectives, GAO 

reviewed relevant provisions in

federal, state, and local laws; 

conducted site visits to various

redevelopment projects where 

eminent domain was used; and 

interviewed multiple national

associations of local and state 

government officials and planning

professionals, national public 

interest groups, and national 

property rights groups to gain their 

perspectives on the use of eminent

domain and its effect on 

communities and property owners.

The Department of Transportation

provided technical comments on a 

draft of this report, which have 

been incorporated where 

appropriate. 

Officials from national organizations and state and local governments cited 

various purposes for which eminent domain can be or has been used, 

including the building or expansion of transportation-related projects; the 

elimination and prevention of conditions that are detrimental to the physical,

social, and economic well-being of an area; remediation of environmental 

contamination; and economic development. However, no centralized or 

aggregate national or state data exist on the use of eminent domain, thereby 

precluding GAO from any national or statewide assessments of, among other 

things, how frequently eminent domain is used for private-to-public or 

private-to-private transfer of property and purposes of these transfers. 

Multiple laws promulgated from federal, state, and local governments set 

forth how authorities can acquire land—including by eminent domain—and 

how compensation for property owners is determined. Some believe 

payment limits are too low. The initial step in a project that involves land 

acquisition is the public review and approval by a public body of a project 

plan, which is followed by a land valuation process during which title studies 

and appraisals are completed. During the land acquisition stage, authorities 

often make a formal offer to the owner and attempt to negotiate the 

purchase of the property. If the authority cannot locate the owner or the 

parties cannot agree to a price, among other circumstances, the authorities

then begin the formal legal proceedings to acquire the property by eminent 

domain. Finally, once the property is acquired, authorities may provide 

relocation assistance that may include monetary payments to cover moving 

expenses. 

Redevelopment projects for which eminent domain is used affect individuals 

and communities in a range of ways that cannot be quantified due to a lack 

of measures and aggregate data. According to authorities, areas selected for 

redevelopment could have been vacant and abandoned land or those that 

included residents and operating businesses. Local officials both described 

and showed us community benefits resulting from redevelopment projects, 

including additional employment opportunities and housing in an area. Also, 

property rights groups told us some of the negative effects of eminent 

domain, such as the dispersal of long-standing communities. Finally, these 

groups expressed concerns about how authorities implement procedures for 

using eminent domain, particularly the provision of public notice to owners 

about the risk of condemnation, and the process for designating an area as 

blighted. 

From June 23, 2005, through July 31, 2006, 29 states enacted at least one of 

the following three general types of changes to their eminent domain laws: 

(1) restrictions on the use of eminent domain under certain circumstances, 

(2) additional procedural requirements, and (3) changes that defined or 

redefined key terms related to eminent domain including public use. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-28.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact William B. 

Shear at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 6

States and Localities Used Eminent Domain for Various Purposes 

and to Varying Degrees, but the Extent of Eminent Domain Use 

Is Unknown Due to Limited Data 8 

Although Many Laws Govern Land Acquisition, Including Eminent 

Domain Use, Common Practices Exist Nationwide 14 

Use of Eminent Domain Generates Benefits and Costs Affecting a 

Wide Array of Community Interests and Individuals 28 

Since June 2005, Many State Legislatures Have Enacted Changes to 

Their Eminent Domain Laws 37 

Observations 44

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 46 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope and Methodology 48 

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53 

Figures 

Figure 1: Federal, State, and Local Laws Condition the Use of 

Eminent Domain 18 

Figure 2: Common Real Estate Acquisition Stages in Visited 

Localities 20

Figure 3: Changes to State Eminent Domain Laws from June 23, 

2005, through July 31, 2006 39 

Page i GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Abbreviations 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

URA Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

 Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 30, 2006 

The Honorable Christopher S. Bond

Chairman 

The Honorable Patty Murray 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, 

 Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and Urban 

 Development, and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Joe Knollenberg 

Chairman 

The Honorable John W. Olver 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, 

 Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, 

 The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and 

 Independent Agencies

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

The protection of property rights plays a vital role within a market 

economy by allowing property owners to control their property and 

therefore benefit from its use, sale, or value. However, elected federal, 

state, and local government officials long have relied on eminent domain—

the government’s power to take private property for a public use while 

fairly compensating the property owner—to assemble land needed to meet 

their constituents’ various public needs. The debate surrounding the use of 

eminent domain by state and local governments was invigorated by the

2005 United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London

(Kelo decision), which involved the purpose for which a government 

authority can invoke its eminent domain power.1

 The decision allows 

private-to-private transfer of property for economic revitalization purposes 

pursuant to a city development plan.

 1

545 U.S. 469 (2005). 

Page 1 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
In the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the 

Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2006 (2006 Act), Congress included provisions 

addressing the use of eminent domain for private-to-private transfers of 

property for economic development purposes.2

 The 2006 Act also 

mandated that we conduct a nationwide study on the use of eminent 

domain. Focused on state and local government use of eminent domain, 

this report provides information on (1) the purposes for and extent to 

which eminent domain can be and has been used; (2) the process states 

and select localities across the country use to acquire land, including by

eminent domain; (3) how the use of eminent domain has affected 

individuals and communities in select localities; and (4) the changes state

legislatures made to laws governing the use of eminent domain from June 

2005 through July 2006.

To address these objectives, we reviewed constitutional provisions in all

50 states to determine whether states require a public use in order to 

invoke eminent domain and that “just” compensation (generally fair 

market value) be paid to property owners whose property is acquired

through eminent domain. We conducted site visits to five cities—

Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York—where we 

toured projects for which eminent domain was used; reviewed detailed

project-specific documentation, and interviewed local officials, property 

rights groups, and property owners to document their respective positions 

and concerns about eminent domain use within their communities. In 

addition, we interviewed multiple national associations of local and state 

government officials and planning professionals, national public interest 

groups, and national property rights groups to gain their perspectives on 

the use of eminent domain and its effect on communities and property 

owners. From some of these national organizations, we solicited project 

examples in which eminent domain was used. We interviewed officials 

from 10 state-level departments of transportation on their land acquisition 

practices, including the use of eminent domain. Furthermore, we 

interviewed officials at the U.S. Departments of Transportation, Housing 

and Urban Development, and Justice, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency about how federal programs or funding may be involved in 

eminent domain proceedings undertaken by state and local governments. 

Finally, we monitored changes to provisions of eminent domain laws from 

June 2005 through July 2006 in 50 states. In addressing our objectives, the 

 2

Pub. L. No. 109-115, div. A, title VII, § 726, 119 Stat. 2396, 2494 – 2395 (Nov. 30, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
lack of comprehensive data on the use of eminent domain in states across 

the nation limited the scope of our work and our methodological options.

We conducted our work from January through November 2006 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix I discusses our scope and methodology in further detail. 

Officials from national organizations, states, and cities with whom we 

spoke cited common public purposes for which eminent domain can be or 

has been used, but limited data preclude a determination of the extent to

which eminent domain has been used nationwide. Purposes cited included 

building roads and other transportation-related projects, construction of 

state and municipal facilities, the elimination and prevention of blight, 

remediation of environmental contamination, and economic development.3

We obtained data on the specific instances and purposes for which 

eminent domain had been used from selected state departments of 

transportation and local authorities. For example, officials from state 

departments of transportation that we contacted reported collecting some 

information related to their use of eminent domain, such as the number of 

properties or portions of properties acquired through eminent domain. 

According to information provided by Baltimore city officials, their city 

most often invoked its eminent domain power to assemble land for 

redevelopment projects that involved blight removal, while Los Angeles 

officials said that the city most often used it for street improvements. 

Although some selected state departments of transportation and local

authorities provided us data on their eminent domain use, no aggregate 

national or state data exist, thereby precluding us from any statewide or 

national assessments of (1) how frequently eminent domain is used, (2) 

how often private-to-public or private-to-private transfer of property 

occurs, or (3) the purposes for which eminent domain has been used by 

state and local governments. The data limitations result from factors such 

as multiple authorities within a state having power to invoke eminent 

domain and states not having central depositories to collect such data. For 

example, in Virginia, no state agency tracks the use of eminent domain by 

Results in Brief 

 3

For purposes of this report, we generally defined blight as a condition of a property or

area that is detrimental to the physical, social, or economic well-being of a designated area. 

We derived this definition from our review of specific blight definitions used by 10 states—

California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Texas, Virginia, 

and Washington. 

Page 3 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
the at least 40 types of authorities (such as school boards) that have the 

power. 

Although federal, state, and local laws and regulations direct how property 

owners will be compensated when eminent domain is used, the basic 

procedural requirements for invoking eminent domain exhibit similarities 

nationwide. Federal and state constitutions and laws outline how property 

owners whose land is being acquired through eminent domain should be 

compensated. In addition, federal and state laws establish relocation 

benefits for displaced residents and businesses. In particular, when 

authorities acquire property for a project in which federal funds are 

involved, states and localities become subject to the Uniform Relocation 

Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), 

which establishes relocation payment amounts and procedures.4

 However, 

many state and local officials commented that the limits the URA places 

on certain relocation expenditures were too low and needed to be revised. 

State and local laws also set forth basic procedural requirements—which 

share certain similarities nationwide—for how authorities acquire land, 

including by eminent domain.5

 These procedures can be divided broadly 

into four stages or steps. The initial step is project planning, during which 

a public body can consider and approve a redevelopment plan, which 

outlines the need for the project and identifies parcels required to 

complete the project. After such plans are approved, authorities typically

begin the land valuation process, during which they conduct title studies 

to determine legal ownership of needed parcels and complete appraisals.

During the third stage, land acquisition, authorities often make a formal 

offer to an owner and attempt to negotiate the purchase of the property. If

the authority and the property owner cannot agree to a price or if an 

authority cannot locate an owner, the authority then begins the formal 

legal proceedings to acquire the property by eminent domain. Finally, once 

the property has been acquired, either through negotiated purchase or 

eminent domain, authorities must compensate the owner justly and 

provide relocation assistance that can include payments for moving and 

related expenses. 

 4

Pub. L. No. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894 (Jan. 2, 1971) codified at 42 U.S.C. § 4601, 4602, 4604, 4605, 

4621 to 4638, and 4651 to 4655. 

5

Authorities acquire land in multiple ways, including through eminent domain. Another 

form of land acquisition by authorities is through negotiated settlement purchase. The

steps addressed in this report that may precede the use of eminent domain also apply in 

cases of negotiated settlement purchase. 

Page 4 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
The projects in which eminent domain is used generate benefits and costs 

that affect, whether positively or negatively, a wide range of community 

interest and individuals. Furthermore, it is difficult to establish measures 

to quantify the wide range of costs and benefits to individual communities 

of projects involving eminent domain. In addition, aggregate data on 

eminent domain use and frequency, as well as costs and benefits, are not

available, which would be necessary to examine the impact of eminent 

domain on a community. Based on the projects that we reviewed or 

visited, we noted that the areas slated for redevelopment exhibited a 

variety of conditions. For example, some areas contained vacant and

unutilized land and structures and some contained operating businesses 

and occupied residences. For selected projects where eminent domain 

was used that we reviewed or visited, authorities described the previously 

existing conditions of the areas and they told us or we observed some of 

the benefits realized by communities after the projects were completed. 

Local officials and officials from most of the selected projects told us that 

the areas generally could be characterized by different conditions, such as 

modernized roadways, additional housing, and increased commercial 

activity. Meanwhile, property rights groups we interviewed described 

some of the negative effects of eminent domain use, such as assembled 

land going unused. Property rights groups and a national community 

organization also highlighted other negative effects, such as loss of small 

businesses and jobs, decreases in affordable housing, and the dispersal of 

communities. In addition to these losses, the groups also noted that the 

ways in which authorities implement procedures for using eminent 

domain also could adversely affect property owners. They cited examples

such as lack of notice, blight designations that negatively impacted 

neighboring nonblighted properties, significantly undervalued appraisals, 

and inadequate compensation. 

From June 23, 2005, through July 31, 2006, many states enacted changes to

their eminent domain laws. According to our analysis, 29 states enacted at 

least one of three general types of changes to their eminent domain laws. 

First, 23 of the 29 states placed restrictions on the use of eminent domain, 

such as prohibiting its use to increase property tax revenues, transfer 

condemned property to a private entity, or assemble land for projects that

are solely for economic development. Second, 24 of the 29 states 

established additional procedural requirements, such as providing further 

public notice prior to condemnation. Finally, 21 of the 29 states enacted 

changes that defined or redefined blight or blighted property, public use, 

or economic development. For example, some states established that 

economic development and the public benefits resulting from it, including 

increased tax revenue and increased employment, do not constitute a 

Page 5 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
public use. The remaining 21 states had not enacted changes to their 

eminent domain laws during that time period based on our analysis. Some 

state legislatures approved constitutional amendments restricting current

eminent domain laws, which were placed on the ballot for voter 

consideration. In three states, citizen-initiated proposals to amend the 

state constitution obtained the requisite number of signatures to be placed 

on a ballot. Finally, some states, including those that did and did not enact 

any changes, and state associations commissioned studies to determine if 

any changes were needed to their eminent domain laws. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Justice, 

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development for their review. The 

Department of Transportation provided technical comments, which have 

been incorporated where appropriate. The Departments of Justice and 

Housing and Urban Development did not have any comment. 

An inherent right of sovereignty, eminent domain is a government’s power 

to take private property for a public use while compensating the property 

owner.6

 Eminent domain is also referred to as “appropriation,” 

“condemnation,” and “taking.” The Fifth Amendment of the United States 

Constitution expressly restricts the federal government’s use of eminent 

domain; it requires that eminent domain be invoked only for a “public use” 

and “just compensation” be paid to those whose property has been taken. 

The Fourteenth Amendment extends the legal requirements of public use 

and just compensation to the states through its Due Process Clause. In 

addition, states have a number of constitutional provisions, statutes, and 

case law outlining the various permissible uses of eminent domain, 

recourse available to property owners, and procedures required to take or

evaluate a property. State legislatures generally determine who may use 

eminent domain by delegating eminent domain authority to state or quasipublic entities, such as housing, transport, and urban renewal authorities,

which may exercise that power only for the purpose for which it was 

established. States may also grant eminent domain authority to local 

governments, which may further delegate this authority to a designee, 

such as a development authority or community group. Finally, some states 

Background 

 6

1-1 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 1.11 (2006); see also Mississippi & Rum River Boom 

Co. v. Patterson, 98 U.S. 403, 406 (1878) (eminent domain “appertains to every independent 

government [and] requires no constitutional recognition; it is an attribute of sovereignty”). 

Page 6 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
authorize private companies to exercise eminent domain—for example, 

for the provision of utility services. 

Courts have addressed the meaning and application of public use in 

numerous cases throughout the years. In 2005, the United States Supreme 

Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, upheld the City of New London’s 

authority to use eminent domain to condemn and acquire property located 

within an area designated as a “distressed municipality,” even though the 

condemned property was not blighted or otherwise in poor condition.7

This decision allowed for private-to-private transfers of property for 

economic development purposes, such as New London’s action in an area 

that had experienced decades of economic decline. According to some 

scholars, the use of eminent domain for such a purpose has been 

permitted since the “mill acts” of the colonial and pre-Revolutionary 

period that permitted the flooding of private property to allow the 

operation of mills downstream; mills were considered the main source of 

power and closely linked to economic development.8

 The Supreme Court 

emphasized that the Kelo decision did not preclude states from placing 

further restrictions on the exercise of eminent domain. Many states have 

been reviewing the use of eminent domain and considering legislative 

changes or constitutional amendments to control its use. 

In addition to the Constitution, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 sets the federal standard for 

acquisition of real property for public projects involving federal financial 

assistance, including prescribing specific benefits, treatment, and 

protections for those whose property is acquired.9

 The act also contains 

requirements for property owner notification and property valuation, as 

well as prohibitions against offers to property owners being less than an 

approved appraisal value. In addition, the act addresses compensation and 

seeks to ensure the fair and equitable treatment and protection from 

 7

545 U.S. 469 (2005). 

8

See Errol E. Meidinger, The “Public Uses” of Eminent Domain: History and Policy, 11

Environmental Law 1 (Fall 1980) and Jennifer M. Klemetsrud, The Use of Eminent Domain

for Economic Development, 75 North Dakota Law Review 783 (1999). 

9

Pub. L. No. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894 (Jan. 2, 1971) codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4601, 4602, 4604, 

4605, 4621 to 4633, 4635, 4636, 4638, 4651 to 4655. For purposes of URA, federal financial 

assistance is defined as “a grant, loan, or contribution provided by the United States, 

except any federal guarantee or insurance, any interest reduction payment to an individual 

in connection with the purchase and occupancy of a residence by that individual, and any

annual payment or capital loan to the District of Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. § 4601(4). 

Page 7 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
disproportionate injury of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, 

or farms in all projects involving federal financial assistance. The act 

requires that certain relocation funding be provided when a resident’s 

property is acquired, such as reasonable out-of-pocket moving expenses 

and relocation advisory services. The relocation funding also includes 

payments to cover rent increases or downpayments on home purchases in

order to assist tenants and owners in relocating to comparable housing, 

which, at a minimum, is decent, safe, and sanitary. 

A number of federal government agencies have acquisition programs 

where the federal government acquires title to the land through 

proceedings in federal courts. However, this report focuses on land 

acquisitions by state or local governments, or their designees.10

Officials from national organizations, states, and cities with whom we 

spoke cited various common public purposes for which eminent domain 

can be or has been used, but the lack of data precludes a determination of 

the extent to which eminent domain has been used across the nation. 

Purposes for which we received examples include the building or 

expansion of roads and other transportation-related projects; construction 

of state and municipal facilities; and the elimination and prevention of 

blight. In addition, officials from some of the national organizations we 

contacted, which represent state and local governments, property rights

groups, urban planning, and home builders, also cited remediation of 

environmental contamination and economic development. Although we 

were able to identify some purposes for which eminent domain can be and 

has been used by certain authorities, we were unable to determine the 

number of times and the purposes for which eminent domain has been 

used across the nation because of a lack of centralized or aggregate data.

States and Localities 

Used Eminent 

Domain for Various 

Purposes and to 

Varying Degrees, but 

the Extent of Eminent 

Domain Use Is 

Unknown Due to 

Limited Data 

 10In contrast to regulatory takings—in which government regulatory actions affect private 

property use—eminent domain as described in this report refers to direct takings of real 

property, where the legal title of the property is transferred. 

Page 8 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
According to representatives from some national organizations 

representing state and local governments, property rights groups, farmers, 

and planning professionals, and state departments of transportation (DOT) 

and city officials, eminent domain could be and has been used for various 

purposes. In particular, many of these representatives and officials said 

that eminent domain was sometimes needed for the completion of 

transportation-related projects, such as the building or expansion of roads 

and highways. As an example, according to Texas DOT officials, from 

November 1996 through March 2005, the department invoked eminent 

domain to acquire 6 of the 26 properties needed to assemble land for the 

construction of an interchange that connected two major highways in 

central Texas. These officials explained that most of these acquisitions 

involved the taking of a small portion of the property (partial takings). 

Furthermore, Texas DOT officials said that because they were making 

improvements to existing highway facilities, the location of such 

improvements was limited to properties adjacent to the highway. 

National Organizations, 

State Agencies, and City 

Officials Cited Various 

Purposes for Using 

Eminent Domain 

In addition, Florida DOT officials told us that the department used eminent 

domain in 1998 and 1999 to acquire 23 of 51 properties, most of which 

were partial takings, needed to reconstruct and widen an existing roadway 

from two to four lanes. City officials we contacted also provided examples 

of transportation-related projects in which eminent domain was used. For 

example, an official from a city in Texas told us that the city, in 

collaboration with the city’s transit authority, used eminent domain to 

acquire 2 of the 9 commercial properties needed to assemble land for the 

expansion of the city’s light rail system in October 1998. According to this 

official, the city’s transit authority was seeking to extend its existing light

rail system to provide a low-cost and energy-efficient means of mass 

transit for commuters. 

Another purpose for which eminent domain can be or has been used is the 

construction or maintenance of state and municipal infrastructure, such as

state and municipal buildings. For example, in January 2002, Los Angeles

used eminent domain to acquire 2 of the 7 properties needed to assemble 

land for the construction of a public building that eventually 

accommodated state and city departments of transportation. In addition, 

officials from some of the national organizations we contacted said that 

eminent domain is also used for public utilities. For example, New York 

City used eminent domain to assemble land for the construction of a 

tunnel for the city’s water system. To complete one phase of the project, 

the city used eminent domain to acquire 3 of the 10 properties needed to 

construct support facilities for the operation and maintenance of the water 

tunnel. Furthermore, the city condemned subsurface rights on more than 

Page 9 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
1,100 properties for the construction of the Manhattan portion of the 

tunnel and approximately 640 additional subsurface rights for the 

Brooklyn and Queens portions. According to a New York City Department 

of Environmental Protection report, the tunnel is expected to enhance and

improve the city’s water system and allow for inspection and repair of the

city’s existing tunnels.11 In addition, an official from a county in California 

provided information about the condemnation of 40 parcels of property in 

June 2001 to assemble land for a flood control and protection project, 

most of which were partial takings. According to this official, the flood 

control and protection improvements were intended for public safety and

public infrastructure protection. 

Eminent domain also can be and has been used to eliminate or prevent 

blight. For example, according to an official from a community 

redevelopment agency in Florida, the agency used eminent domain in 

March 1998 to acquire 3 of the 39 parcels needed to eliminate slum and 

blighted conditions, stimulate private investment in the area, provide 

commercial opportunities, and enhance the area’s tax base. This agency 

official said that the redevelopment of the area consists of commercial 

space and residential housing and was the first significant private 

investment made in the area in decades. In addition, New York City 

officials provided an example in which the city condemned property 

through eminent domain to eliminate blight. According to city officials, the

city acquired 407 parcels to eliminate blight by constructing a major 

housing development.12 The city’s plan for the project indicated that the 

project was intended to accomplish several things, including providing 

new and rehabilitated housing for low-, moderate-, and middle-income 

residents and strengthening the tax base of the city by encouraging 

development. 

Furthermore, officials of some national organizations representing state 

and local governments, property rights groups, planners, and home 

builders said that eminent domain can be used for brownfield remediation, 

which is the environmental cleanup of property that is or may be 

contaminated. According to officials from an organization representing 

 11New York City Department of Environmental Protection, New York City 2005 Drinking 

Water Supply and Quality Report (New York, N.Y.: 2005). 

12According to New York City officials, although the city already owned 190 of the 407

parcels, the city needed to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire all of the parcels

to ensure that it was the sole legal title holder on the property. 

Page 10 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
local government environmental professionals, oftentimes development of

certain brownfield properties only occurs with the use of eminent domain 

because of the owners’ unwillingness to transfer property or allow access

for site inspections for fear of later being held liable for clean-up costs. 

Although the officials from the national organizations mentioned above 

also cited brownfield remediation as a purpose for which eminent domain 

could be used, we were unable to obtain sufficient project information to 

conduct any further analysis or provide examples in this report. 

Finally, officials from some of the national organizations with whom we 

met cited economic development as a purpose for which eminent domain 

can be and has been used. However, according to an official from a 

national organization representing city governments, the use of eminent 

domain solely for economic development purposes is minimal compared 

with the use of eminent domain for other purposes, such as 

transportation-related projects. Officials from some authorities that have 

the power to use eminent domain said that some of their projects might be 

linked to economic development, but that economic development was not 

the primary purpose of the projects. In addition, all of the projects we 

reviewed in which eminent domain was used to eliminate blight were 

associated with projects intended to improve the economic condition of 

the area. For example, as we have previously described, the 

redevelopment agency in Florida used eminent domain to acquire three

parcels of property to eliminate slum and blighted conditions by 

stimulating private investment in the area, providing commercial 

opportunities, and enhancing the area’s tax base.

Officials from an organization representing state legislatures said that 

economic development is closely related to blight removal because 

authorities with eminent domain power may claim that blight removal will 

stimulate the community’s economic conditions. In addition,

representatives from some national organizations representing state and

local governments, planning professionals, and officials from some cities 

we visited said that transportation-related projects might lead to an area’s 

economic development. For example, New York City officials said that 

even acquisitions of property by eminent domain that are not primarily 

intended for economic development, such as the construction of a road or

highway, would likely improve the economic condition in the area because

of the improved access to businesses in the area, potentially increasing the 

profitability of the businesses. City officials from Chicago and Los Angeles

told us that the construction of state buildings in their downtowns had 

positive economic impact on their cities because the projects attracted 

private development. Finally, an official from Denver Urban Renewal 

Page 11 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Authority described the Authority’s use of eminent domain to assist a 

developer complete refurbishing of a downtown property of architectural

and historical significance, thus preventing the property from becoming 

vacant and potentially having a negative impact on its surrounding area. 

We also obtained data on the use of eminent domain from selected state

DOTs and local authorities.13 The data reflect that the amount of eminent 

domain activity and purposes for which eminent domain was invoked 

varied by states and localities. Officials from 9 state DOTs we contacted 

estimated that the number of individual properties they used eminent 

domain to acquire in the last 5 years for transportation-related projects 

ranged from approximately 200 to 7,800.14 As we previously discussed, 

according to the state DOT officials, because most of their projects involve 

improvements on existing transportation systems, the majority of the 

private properties they assembled for the projects consisted of partial 

acquisitions.15 In addition, according to information provided by Baltimore 

and Los Angeles city officials, Baltimore invoked its eminent domain 

power most commonly to assemble land for urban redevelopment projects 

that involved blight removal, while Los Angeles invoked its eminent 

domain power most often for street improvements projects. Similarly, 

according to New York City officials, the city invoked its eminent domain 

power most commonly to assemble land for parks and street widening. 

Officials from Chicago and Denver told us that they do not have complete 

data on the number and purposes for which they used their eminent 

domain authority, but provided us with some information on their use of 

eminent domain. Specifically, City of Chicago officials estimated that they

acquired 2,000 parcels through eminent domain in the last 10 years. In 

addition, officials from Denver told us that the city used its eminent 

domain authority mostly for street improvement projects. 

 13According to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials, state DOTs have been

collecting and reporting to FHWA some data related to the use of eminent domain since 

1991. 

14The numbers include instances in which state DOTs used eminent domain to acquire 

entire and portions of properties. The variation in the range of the number of times eminent 

domain was used by the state DOTs we contacted may reflect differences in state law 

granting state DOTs eminent domain authority, the geographic size of the state, and traffic

conditions within the state, among other factors. 

15State DOT officials also referred to these instances as “partial takings” or “strip takings.” 

Page 12 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
The lack of state or national data precluded objective statewide or 

national assessments on the use of eminent domain, including (1) how 

frequently eminent domain is used, (2) how often private-to-public or 

private-to-private transfer of property occurs, or (3) the purposes for 

which eminent domain has been used by state and local governments.16

Although we were able to collect limited data on the purposes and number 

of instances in which eminent domain was used, officials from some of the 

national organizations we contacted told us that state or national 

aggregate data on the use of eminent domain do not exist. At least two 

major factors account for the lack of aggregate data. First, officials from 

the U.S. Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban 

Development, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, told us that 

the federal agencies generally do not acquire private property through 

eminent domain directly, but may be indirectly involved through the 

different programs or agencies they administer or fund. Furthermore, 

officials from these Federal agencies told us that they do not formally 

track whether program participants use eminent domain. 

No Aggregate Data Exist 

on the Number of 

Instances and Purposes for 

which Eminent Domain 

Was Used

Second, the lack of state data on the use of eminent domain may result 

from multiple authorities in a state having the power to invoke eminent 

domain and states not having central repositories to collect such data. As 

we have previously discussed, since states grant eminent domain 

authorities to local governments, which may further delegate this authority 

to a designee, such as a development authority, many entities have the

power to invoke eminent domain. Of the 10 state legislative research 

offices we contacted, 5 provided us with information on the authorities 

that have eminent domain power within their states.17 For instance, 

according to information provided by the Virginia legislative research 

office, at least 40 different types of authorities can invoke eminent domain, 

including school board districts that can use it to acquire any property 

necessary for public school purposes. The legislative research office of 

Massachusetts listed 8 different types of authorities with eminent domain 

power. For example, the Armory Commission can use eminent domain to 

acquire land suitable for target practice ranges for the armed forces of 

 16We attempted to collect information about the use of eminent domain from multiple 

sources, such as national organizations and cities that have used eminent domain; however, 

we were unable to collect a significant amount of information on the use of eminent 

domain. See appendix I for more information on the methodology used to collect such 

information. 

17Although multiple authorities within a state have the power of eminent domain, some may 

not have occasion to exercise this power. 

Page 13 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Massachusetts, subject to the governor’s approval.

18 In addition to the 8 

authorities, the information provided by the Massachusetts legislative 

research office states that Massachusetts’ general statutes also grant the 

power to, among others, the governor and state council, county 

commissioners, and city aldermen. Furthermore, according to a Texas 

Legislative Council report, at least 90 different types of authorities have 

been granted the power of eminent domain in Texas, including agricultural 

development districts, railroad companies, and sports facilities districts.19

Finally, the legislative research offices of Illinois and Washington provided 

us with information on statutes that described the authorities that were 

granted eminent domain power. In particular, in Illinois, at least 168 types 

of authorities, including those dealing with transportation, such as the 

Chicago Transit Authority and the Kankakee River Valley Area Airport 

Authority, have the power to acquire property through eminent domain, 

and, in Washington, at least 78 types of authorities were granted this 

power. 

Public authorities at the state and local levels acquire property, including

by eminent domain, through processes set forth in various federal, state, 

and local land acquisition laws and implementing regulations. Federal and 

state laws, such as the URA, outline how much compensation authorities 

need to pay property owners whose land is being acquired and also direct

authorities on what type of relocation assistance to provide to residents 

and businesses. However, local and state officials we met expressed some

concerns about certain limits that the URA places on the amount and type

of relocation payments to displaced residents and businesses. In addition 

to local laws and regulations, federal and state laws establish procedures 

for how authorities must undertake land acquisition, including the use of 

eminent domain. Although multiple laws address land acquisition, 

authorities we interviewed follow broadly similar steps. When acquiring 

land, which may involve the use of eminent domain, authorities generally

follow a four-step process: (1) project planning; (2) property valuation; (3) 

property acquisition; and (4) relocation of displaced property owners, 

residents, and businesses. Sometimes these steps overlap. 

Although Many Laws 

Govern Land 

Acquisition, Including 

Eminent Domain Use, 

Common Practices 

Exist Nationwide 

 18Mass Gen. Laws ch. 33, § 126. 

19Texas Legislative Council, Fact at a Glance: Texas Statutes Granting, Prohibiting, or 

Restricting the Power of Eminent Domain (Austin, TX, 2006).

Page 14 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Land acquisition laws generally require compensation be paid to the 

owner of a property that a public authority has acquired, including 

acquisitions by eminent domain. All 50 state constitutions require that just 

or fair compensation be paid to those whose property has been taken

through eminent domain.20 Just compensation is a payment by the 

government for property it has taken under eminent domain, usually the 

fair market value, so that the owner theoretically is no worse off after the 

taking.21 As mentioned earlier, the United States Constitution stipulates 

that eminent domain use by a government authority must include just 

compensation to the property owner. Some state constitutions, including 

Georgia and Montana, provide for payment of expenses above the fair 

market value of the property such as, in certain circumstances, attorney’s 

fees or litigation expenses incurred in determining adequate 

compensation. 

Federal and State 

Governments Set 

Compensation and 

Relocation Benefits, but 

Concerns Exist That Some 

Payment Limits Are Too 

Low 

The land acquisition process often includes relocation of either the 

property owner or residents and businesses located in the property 

acquired by the authority; federal and state laws also address the costs 

involved in relocation. Requirements in the URA, the federal law governing

the provision of relocation benefits to displaced parties, are applicable to

all acquisitions—including voluntary acquisitions achieved through 

negotiated settlements and acquisitions through eminent domain—of real 

property for federal or federally assisted programs or projects. The URA 

provides benefits to displaced individuals, families, businesses, and 

nonprofit organizations. The types of benefits provided depend on factors 

such as ownership, tenancy, and use of property (commercial versus 

residential use). Local officials told us that they have provided benefits 

 20The requirement in the Kansas Constitution for full compensation applies to corporations.

However, Kansas courts have applied the federal constitutional requirement that just 

compensation be paid when private property is taken for public use by way of the 

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. See Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Sec. of

Kansas Dept. of Transp., 671 P.2d 511, 514-515 (Kan. 1983). Further, these requirements 

have been codified in Kansas statutory law. Id. (citing K.S.A. 26-513(a)). New Hampshire’s

Constitution does not expressly mention compensation, but just compensation is

nevertheless required. Thomas Tool Services, Inc. v. Town of Croydon, 761 A.2d 439, 441 

(N.H. 2000) (citing Burrows v. City of Keene, 432 A.2d 15, 18 (N.H. 1981)). The North

Carolina Constitution does not expressly prohibit taking private property for public use 

without just compensation, but its courts have inferred such a prohibition as a fundamental 

right integral to the “law of the land” clause that is in its constitution. Finch v. City of 

Durham, 384 S.E.2d 8, 14 (N.C. 1989) (citing Long v. City of Charlotte, 293 S.E.2d 101, 107-

108 (N.C. 1982)). 

21This is also generally termed adequate compensation, due compensation, or land 

damages. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). 

Page 15 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
under the URA such as: actual moving costs for residents and businesses; 

comparable replacement housing; rental assistance for tenants; cost of 

personal property loss for businesses; expenses in finding a replacement 

site for businesses; and reestablishment costs for businesses up to 

$10,000.22 In addition, some city and state officials with whom we spoke 

explained that their states have adopted legislation or policies with 

requirements similar to the URA, providing some or all of the same 

benefits to residents and owners displaced through nonfederally funded 

projects.23

However, local officials, and redevelopment agency officials from four of 

the five cities we visited believed that payment amounts allowable under

the URA might not be adequate to cover costs. For example, we were told 

that a $10,000 cap on reestablishment costs for business relocation, 

unchanged since 1987, was too low.24 Most officials noted that 

reestablishments costs exceed this cap. For example, Chicago officials 

described high reestablishment costs such as, replacing specialized 

fixtures, licensing and permitting, and differential payments for increased

rent, insurance, and other needs. Furthermore, a Los Angeles city official 

noted that the URA requires lump sum payments to remain under a 

$20,000 cap.25 Los Angeles officials use these settlements frequently, but 

one official stated that the URA cap was too low. 

Officials from 6 of the 10 state DOTs that we contacted remarked that 

various benefit limits in the URA are too low to properly compensate for 

business reestablishment costs. According to the U.S. Department of 

 22Some authorities provide businesses with lump sum payments in lieu of those listed for 

all costs incurred from displacement. 

23According to FHWA officials, while the URA provides for limits on certain relocation 

expenditures that are eligible for reimbursement when federal financial assistance is

involved, states may be eligible for additional federal reimbursement in excess of amounts 

required by the URA for certain types of transportation projects. 

24The URA permits payment for (1) actual reasonable expenses for moving, (2) actual 

direct losses of tangible personal property as a result of moving or discontinuing a business 

up to a reasonable amount that would have been required to relocate, (3) actual reasonable 

expenses in looking for a replacement business, and (4) actual reasonable expenses

necessary to reestablish a business at a new site. 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a). However, the amount 

permitted to be paid for reestablishment is limited to $10,000. 42 U.S.C. § 4622(a)(4). 

25The URA permits business and farm operations eligible for relocation benefits to elect a

lump sum payment in lieu of the payments based on their actual reasonable expenses (see 

prior footnote). However, this payment cannot be more than $20,000. 42 U.S.C. § 4622(c). 

Page 16 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Transportation, the agency responsible for issuing regulations to 

implement the URA, the agency’s Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) has received comments about the inadequacy of business 

reestablishment payments under the URA from states, other federal 

agencies, and affected businesses.26 In response to these comments, FHWA 

undertook multiple activities to identify needed programmatic change in

the URA, according to FHWA officials. In particular, in 2002 FHWA 

conducted a study to assess the adequacy of current URA provisions for 

business relocations and found that reestablishment payments were 

largely considered inadequate.27 In 2005 FHWA made some revisions to the 

URA regulations, but the revisions did not raise the cap on 

reestablishment payments.28 Such an increase requires a statutory change.

29

State and Local Laws 

Further Direct Authorities 

on How to Acquire Land, 

Including Eminent Domain 

Use 

State and local laws further condition how land may be acquired, including 

through eminent domain (see fig. 1). Among the states that we reviewed, 

some states enacted additional laws concerning land acquisition, such as 

requirements for environmental assessments. For instance, according to 

City of Los Angeles officials, the California Environmental Quality Act 

requires that the environmental impacts of discretionary projects 

proposed to be carried out by public agencies, including in general 

publicly funded projects in the state involving land acquisition, be 

assessed at the earliest possible time in the environmental review 

process.30 In New York, according to city officials, when a significant 

 26The URA designates the U.S. Department of Transportation as the lead agency, which is 

responsible for developing, publishing and issuing regulations implementing the URA. 42 

U.S.C. § 4601(12) and 4633. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and 

other federal agencies funding relocation and acquisition actions actively participate in this 

process. 42 U.S.C. § 4633(a)(1). 

27U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Office of Real Estate Services, National 

Business Relocation Study, April 2002, Report No. FHWA-EP-02-030. According to FHWA

officials, FHWA held two national symposia on the URA, conducted research projects, 

including reviews of similar laws in other countries, and held public listening sessions on 

regulatory and statutory reform in addition to the 2002 study. 

2870 Fed. Reg. 590 (Jan. 4, 2005). According to FHWA officials, one revision included recategorizing several eligible expenses that previously counted towards the reestablishment 

limit set in the URA. This regulatory change, according to FHWA officials, addressed some

of the concerns with the reestablishment limits by allowing additional actual, reasonable 

and necessary costs to be eligible for reimbursement. 

2942 U.S.C. § 4622(a)(4) and (c). 

30Cal. Pub. Res. Code div. 13. 

Page 17 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
adverse environmental impact is likely to result from a project, the State

Environmental Quality Review Act requires an assessment in the form of 

an environmental impact statement of short and long term impacts, 

adverse environmental impacts, and mitigation measures.31 In addition, 

according to officials, residential and business displacement from a 

project is generally analyzed in the review conducted under New York 

State and New York City law. 

Figure 1: Federal, State, and Local Laws Condition the Use of Eminent Domain 

Law Federal

Level of government agency

State Local

Applicable federal law (e.g., Uniform Relocation Assistance

and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970)

U.S. Constitution

State law (e.g., California Eminent Domain and

Relocation Assistance Laws)

State constitutions (e.g., state constitutional

clauses related to just compensation)

Local law (e.g., Uniform Land

Use Review Procedures, New York City)

Source: GAO.

Some states have laws outlining how authorities granted eminent domain 

authority within their state can invoke this power to assemble land for 

public projects. For example, in Illinois, Article VII of the Code of Civil 

Procedure sets forth procedures for use of the power of eminent domain 

by state and local governments including provisions regarding the 

determination of property value, negotiation with property owners, and 

the initiation of condemnation.32 Provisions in the Illinois Municipal Code 

authorize municipalities to take property for redevelopment based on a 

blight designation.33 In New York, the Eminent Domain Procedure Law 

sets forth the procedure by which property is acquired and property 

owners are compensated.34 This law also establishes the opportunity for 

public participation in the planning of redevelopment projects, which may 

 31N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law ch. 43-B, art. 8.

32See, for example, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/7-102.1, 5/7-104, and 5/7-121. 

3365 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11-11-1. 

34N.Y. Em. Dom. Proc. Law §§ 101, 104 and 501. 

Page 18 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
necessitate eminent domain use. Through these procedures, the state 

acknowledges that the need for public land acquisition should be balanced 

against the rights of private property owners and local communities, 

encourages the settlement of claims for compensation, and reduces 

related litigation. California’s Eminent Domain and Relocation Assistance 

Laws implemented by the Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Guidelines governs private property acquisition by a public

authority not involving federal funds.

35 The guidelines are designed to 

ensure equitable treatment for persons displaced from a home or business, 

reduce related litigation, and require comparable replacement dwellings.36

The Colorado Urban Renewal and Eminent Domain Laws contain 

procedures for using eminent domain to eliminate or prevent blight or 

slum conditions.37 To govern the relocation of displaced residents, 

Maryland, New York, and Washington, like California, have established 

laws that provide certain state relocation benefits.

38 Therefore, a mixture 

of federal and state laws directs how local authorities use their eminent 

domain power, provide compensation, and other required benefits. 

In addition to the federal and state laws that authorities must follow when 

invoking eminent domain, some of the cities that we visited had additional 

local laws or city agency regulations that governed urban redevelopment, 

as well as relocation of displaced residents and businesses (see fig. 1). For 

example, in New York City, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure 

Charter, approved in 1975, standardizes how applications affecting land 

use in New York City, including projects involving eminent domain, are 

publicly reviewed.39 Another law sets forth the rights of residential and 

commercial tenants displaced by urban redevelopment in New York City.40

The Los Angeles redevelopment agency has also established an appeals 

 35Cal. Civ. Proc. Code pt. 3, tit. 7; Cal. Gov’t. Code § 7260 et seq.; and Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, 

§ 6000 et seq. The guidelines expressly recognize the priority of federal law and that

California law only applies when the federal rules are not imposed. Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, § 

6018. 

36Cal. Code Regs. tit. 25, § 6002. 

37Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 et seq. (urban renewal) and Colo. Rev. Stat. 38-1-101 et seq. 

(eminent domain). 

38See, for example, Md. Code Ann., Real Property § 12-206; N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 74-b; and 

Wash. Rev. Code § 8.26.065.

39New York City Charter § 197-c. 

4028 RCNY § 18-04. 

Page 19 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
procedure for relocation decisions which is supplementary to federal and 

state law, according to information provided by Los Angeles city officials.

Authorities Follow Several 

Similar Steps in Projects 

that Can Involve Eminent 

Domain 

The complexities associated with land assembly have led to numerous 

approaches for acquiring land and providing just compensation. However, 

when state and local authorities acquire land, either through negotiated

purchase or eminent domain, they follow some common procedural 

practices. The land acquisition process generally occurs in four stages, 

including (1) project planning; (2) property valuation, during which 

appraisals are conducted; (3) property acquisition; and (4) relocation, 

during which authorities may provide residents and businesses 

replacement housing or commercial property (see fig. 2). Sometimes these 

stages are concurrent, with some variation across the localities we visited. 

The views that property owners and property rights organizations we 

interviewed have on these stages are discussed in a later section of this 

report. 

Figure 2: Common Real Estate Acquisition Stages in Visited Localities 

Project planning

Property acquisition

Property valuation

Relocation

• Identify need for project

• Develop project plan

• Provide public notice

• Hold hearings

• Plan approval

• Title studies

• Property appraisals

• Appraisal review

• Offer to purchase

• Negotiations

• Sale or

eminent domain filing

Sources: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (images).

• Process and benefits

 explained to owner

• New home or business

 location found

• Monetary 

benefits provided

Page 20 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
The project planning stage may begin by identifying the need for a project. 

Depending on the type of project, city departments of engineering or 

planning, city redevelopment or renewal authorities, or state departments 

of transportation with whom we spoke, conduct work at this stage. For 

example, 23 U.S.C. § 135 (section 135), as amended by the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users, mandates that states carry out a statewide transportation planning 

process that involves both a long-range statewide transportation plan, 

which identifies transportation needs over roughly a 20-year horizon, and a 

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is a listing

of potential projects to be constructed in the near term, covering a 4-year 

period.41

Project Planning Stage 

FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration jointly administer the 

statewide planning program. During these planning processes, according 

to FHWA officials, state DOTs work with other state agencies and local 

authorities within a cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive 

framework to make decisions on the need for new state highways or 

interchanges, among other transportation-related public improvements. 

Section 135 requires public notice during the planning process, which for 

the long-term plan includes public meetings at convenient and accessible 

locations at convenient times, use of visualization techniques to describe 

plans, and provision of public information in an electronically accessible 

format, such as the Internet.42 The STIP also requires states to provide 

interested parties with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the 

proposed program.43 According to state DOT officials in New York, project 

managers will attend local board or council meetings before a design for a 

new transportation project is proposed. After the project proposal, New 

York officials hold informational meetings for property owners and allow 

time for individual question and answer sessions. New York officials 

consider alternative site selections proposed by the property owners, 

although the state DOT eventually selects the least intrusive and safest 

alternative by weighing social, economic, safety, and technical 

considerations. Other states that we contacted, including Missouri, Illinois, 

California, Colorado, and Texas, also described their adherence to the 

federal requirements in conducting their statewide transportation 

 41Pub. L. No. 109-59, § 6001(a),119 Stat. 1144, 1851 (Aug. 10, 2005). 

4223 U.S.C. § 135(f)(3).

4323 U.S.C. § 135(g)(3).

Page 21 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
improvement plans and providing public notice of the project design 

process. 

In cities or localities, the project planning stage may generally involve 

developing, publicly vetting, and approving a project plan by a public 

body, such as a city council. Redevelopment where eminent domain may 

be used in the five cities we visited may involve the creation and approval

of an urban renewal or redevelopment plan, which establishes such things 

as the need for the project, lists the parcels required to complete the 

project, and creates a timeline. In some localities, such planning processes 

may involve the completion of impact studies of the potential effects from 

the proposed redevelopment project on the neighborhood and the 

environment. Multiple public hearings or meetings may occur when 

localities are vetting a redevelopment plan. Chicago officials told us that 

the public may attend hearings or meetings held by the city’s planning 

department, city council, and an appointed body known as the Community 

Development Commission, at which redevelopment plans and takings are 

approved. In addition, local alderman may also sponsor public meetings 

on proposed redevelopment plans. In New York City, the Uniform Land 

Use Procedure Law provides for review before four city entities: the local

community board, borough president, city planning commission, and the 

city council. Property owners and the community, in New York, Chicago

and in other localities, are notified about hearings through letters sent to 

their mailing addresses. 

This planning process often ends with the approval of a project plan by a 

public body. In all five cities we visited, officials told us that the city 

council approves the redevelopment or urban renewal plan, at times 

granting the appropriate public authority the specific power to acquire 

properties necessary to complete the project. Sometimes the development 

of these plans involves organizations outside the local or state 

government, such as community groups or developers. Officials from 

some of the cities we visited explained that the city may work with the 

developer by exercising its power of eminent domain to complete the site

assemblage necessary for a developer’s project. This collaboration 

typically occurs after the developer has acquired as many parcels in a 

redevelopment site as it can through private market transactions. 

During project planning, city authorities often may have to demonstrate 

blight or slum conditions in the area slated for redevelopment. States 

allowing the use of eminent domain for blight removal generally establish 

criteria to determine blight. These criteria may consider conditions of 

blight that impose a physical or economic burden on a community. 

Page 22 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Examples of physical blight in some state laws include buildings in which 

it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. Indications of 

physical blight may include building code violations, structural 

dilapidation and deterioration, defective building design or physical 

construction, or faulty or inadequate utilities. Blight also may include 

neighboring or nearby property uses that are incompatible with one 

another and prevent the economic development of the respective parcels,

such as the existence of irregularly sized lots. Depreciated or stagnant 

property values, high vacancy or turnover rates of commercial property, or 

increased abandonment of buildings and lots can be indications of 

economic blight, as can high crime rates or residential overcrowding. 

While state laws often determine blight factors, authorities may have some 

latitude in applying them to properties and areas. The City of Chicago, 

following Illinois law, must apply a 13-factor test to determine blight for a 

redevelopment project area. To classify an entire area, such as a city 

block, as blighted, five or more of the factors must be clearly present and 

reasonably distributed throughout a project area. City officials explained 

that this standard means that at least a third to one half of the properties 

in a designated area meet at least 5 of the 13 blight factors. Officials in Los 

Angeles informed us that in order to adopt a redevelopment plan an area 

must generally be characterized by one condition of physical blight and 

one condition of economic blight. According to officials at the Denver 

Urban Renewal Authority, in order to undertake any redevelopment 

project, a blight designation must precede any redevelopment action. In 

addition, the officials explained to us that early in the project development 

stage, the authority conducts a study, pursuant to Colorado state statute, 

to determine that a minimum of 4 of the 11 blight characteristics in state 

law are present in the designated area. These criteria include unsanitary or

unsafe conditions, deteriorated or deteriorating structures, environmental 

contamination, and the existence of conditions that endanger life or 

property. 

The property valuation stage may involve title studies and property 

appraisals that city, state, or contract appraisers often conduct. Several 

state and city officials with whom we met or spoke described the need to 

conduct title studies to determine legal ownership of a property and 

ascertain any lien holders. To determine the fair market value of the 

property, which is generally the amount of the first offer made by public

authorities, city officials described using an independent, certified 

appraiser. According to officials in New York City, fair market value is 

determined by valuing the highest and best use of the property on the date 

of acquisition. In Los Angeles, city officials explained that state law 

Property Valuation Stage 

Page 23 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
defines fair market value as the highest price that a willing buyer and 

willing seller would agree to, neither being compelled to buy or sell and 

each having full knowledge of all of the uses, and restrictions on use, to 

which the property may be put.44 In other words, officials from the Los 

Angeles authority are required to pay owners not less than the amount for 

which their property would sell privately on the open market if it were 

unaffected by a possible eminent domain action. Massachusetts Highway 

Department officials described having all appraisals exceeding $175,000 in

value reviewed by a real estate review board appointed by the state’s 

transportation commissioner for accuracy and then submitted for final 

approval to the transportation commissioner. Some transportation 

authority officials also described using in-house appraisers at their 

agencies. During this stage, owners also may obtain appraisals of the fair 

market value on their property, although sometimes at their own expense. 

The property acquisition stage may involve a formal offer, negotiation by

the city, state, or redevelopment authority officials, and at times, an 

impasse leading to an eminent domain filing by an authority’s legal 

counsel. Multiple authority officials described using eminent domain after 

many attempts at a negotiated settlement had been unsuccessful. If the 

owner does not agree with an authority’s initial offer, then some 

authorities may provide additional offers above the appraised value. In 

some localities, this sort of negotiation involves the owner identifying 

special circumstances that justify a higher level of compensation. Denver 

authorities told us that their initial offer to purchase is typically based on 

an appraisal. Any settlement that can be reached at the midpoint between 

the city’s appraisal and the property owner’s appraisal when the latter is 

higher is considered an appropriate settlement. The Denver official stated

that it is the city’s practice to pay more than the fair market value on the 

property to compensate for inconvenience or intangible difficulties caused 

by condemnation. When seeking a negotiated settlement, the authorities 

we contacted had different limits on the percentage amount over the 

appraised value that they could offer prior to invoking their power of 

eminent domain. For example, the Community Redevelopment Agency of

Los Angeles cannot make an offer of over 120 percent of the appraised 

value of the property without agency board approval. A higher offer by the 

redevelopment agency may be considered a gift of public funds, which the 

agency, by law, cannot make, according to officials. In New York City, 

based on agency protocols, the Department of Citywide Administrative 

Property Acquisition Stage 

 44Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1263.320(a). 

Page 24 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Services may pay no more than 110 percent of the original appraisal prior 

to the use of eminent domain. Similarly, the city’s Department of Housing 

Preservation and Development has established rules to pay no more than 

120 percent of the original appraisal prior to the use of eminent domain. In 

Chicago, a city official estimated that within 1 year, 75 percent of owners 

settle at an amount between 100 and 150 percent of the original offer. 

Once authorities are certain that the owner will not settle or that the legal

owner cannot be located, they may file to condemn the property with 

eminent domain in the appropriate court.45 However, the manner in which 

authorities can invoke eminent domain differs. For example, two state 

DOTs we contacted have established policies to invoke eminent domain 

for each acquisition undertaken, including acquisitions involving willing 

sellers, to ensure that the authority is the sole legal title holder on the 

property. Multiple cities and state departments of transportation told us 

they also had the statutory authority to use a procedure known as “quicktake,” which refers to the ability to petition a court for immediate vesting 

of a property’s title. If the petition is granted, the court transfers the 

property to the authority and the final compensation is determined at a

later date. The authority must deposit the estimated compensation with 

the court, which owners may withdraw without relinquishing their ability 

to argue for more compensation. Local officials have noted that for most 

eminent domain filings, the authority and the owner come to a settlement 

without the need for a trial. For instance, officials from three authorities 

we contacted estimated that 90 percent of all eminent domain filings were 

settled prior to trial. 

Although few eminent domain cases go to jury trial, authority officials 

stated that eminent domain is the most effective tool they have to acquire 

needed property from owners who hold out for a higher purchase price or 

refuse to sell. Officials in one city explained that they also use eminent 

domain to void leases on property while other officials explained that they 

use it to obtain abandoned property when no owner can be located. For 

example, city officials with whom we spoke stated that eminent domain is 

needed to acquire properties from owners that purchase and hold on to 

property after an area is slated for redevelopment. Officials stated that 

they generally believe these owners are speculating that land values will 

 45Prior to an authority filing in court to condemn a property, owners may have negotiated 

with authorities under the threat of eminent domain. Once the authority files to condemn a 

property through eminent domain, the threat of eminent domain becomes the actual use of 

the tool. Nevertheless, owners and authorities may still continue to negotiate. 

Page 25 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
increase because of the expected public investment in the redevelopment 

project. 

The relocation stage may involve outreach by the condemning authority 

and the provision of relocation benefits by agency or contracted relocation 

specialists to displaced residential or commercial owners or tenants. For 

instance, New York City defines displaced party as any family, individual,

partnership, corporation, or association that is displaced or moves from 

real property, or who moved his or her personal property from such real 

property, on or after the date of acquisition of the real property for a 

public improvement or urban renewal site or project.46 The URA’s 

definition of a “displaced person” covers anyone who moves because they

received a written notice that a program or project undertaken by a 

federal agency or with federal financial assistance intends to acquire his or

her property (including a rental property).47 Some authorities, such as the 

cities of Los Angeles and Chicago, have dedicated offices within the 

condemning agency to manage the provision of relocation benefits. Other 

localities, including New York City, sometimes contract out this 

responsibility to private relocation firms, for example when undertaking 

larger projects involving multiple displaced parties. 

Relocation Stage 

Multiple relocation specialists with whom we spoke, whether they were 

authority officials or contracted specialists, reported contacting the 

property owner as soon as the public entity received the authority to take 

the owner’s specific property or soon thereafter and providing relocation

support for the duration of the settlement or condemnation. For example, 

Chicago officials told us that within five days of the city’s first offer letter,

relocation specialists will contact the property owner and tenant to set-up 

a face-to-face interview to determine their needs. Relocation specialists 

may meet with displaced residents at numerous steps of the land 

acquisition process. They may explain the residents’ rights, benefits, and 

obligations and may interpret legal notices received from the authority. 

According to some relocation specialists, residential tenants and owners 

are to be relocated to comparable replacement housing that is decent, 

safe, sanitary, and functionally equivalent to the displaced dwelling. 

Relocation specialists from two localities described making every effort to 

house residents in neighborhoods of their choice, including their current 

neighborhood if possible, and finding rental housing for residents who 

 4628 RCNY 18-04(b). 

4742 U.S.C. § 4601(6)(A). 

Page 26 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
were renters. City officials from four of five cities we visited showed us 

new residential apartment buildings, one of which included services, such 

as child care and computer centers, into which they moved displaced 

residents. 

For business occupants, relocation specialists may conduct 

comprehensive analyses of the business’ location requirements, fixtures, 

moving costs, and other relevant considerations to find a comparable site 

for business relocation. In one city we were told that relocation specialists 

work with the business owners to address all commercial issues, including 

negotiating all comparable square footage costs and rent and getting the

same phone number transferred to a new location. Some relocation 

specialists are associated with local retail and office landlords and attempt 

to negotiate a price which, combined with relocation funding under the 

URA, initially can keep the rental costs similar to the previous location. 

According to all of the relocation specialists who we interviewed, 

relocated commercial occupants generally have done better financially in 

other, more economically stable neighborhoods. 

Relocation benefits under the URA and many local and state laws include 

some or all of the following payments to residential and commercial 

tenants: 

• Actual moving expenses, which may include packing and moving 

expenses, storage of personal property, the cost of dismantling, 

disconnecting, and reconnecting machinery and utilities, loss of personal 

property caused by the move, the expense of searching for a substitute 

business site, moving insurance, advertising related to the move, or other 

related expenses (or a fixed moving allowance in some locations); 

• Compensation over the acquisition cost of the property for an owner to 

purchase a comparable replacement home, pay increased mortgage costs, 

or pay closing costs;48

• For tenants, a monthly rental subsidy to rent a comparable dwelling for a 

period of 42 months that is equal to the differential between what the 

tenant was paying at the displaced dwelling and the payment at the 

comparable dwelling (many localities also allow this payment to be made 

 48The URA limits this payment to $22,500. 42 U.S.C. §4623(a)(1). 

Page 27 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
in a lump sum so that renters may use it as a down payment to purchase a

home); and 

• A payment in lieu of moving and related expenses in nonresidential moves, 

which may be made to a commercial owner when relocation would result 

in substantial loss of business. 

For selected projects where eminent domain was used that we reviewed 

or visited, authorities described the previous conditions of the selected 

areas and they told us or we observed some of the benefits realized by 

communities after the projects were completed. Examples of benefits to 

the community included increased job opportunities and modernized or 

safer infrastructure. Property rights groups told us about the negative 

effects that the use of eminent domain could have on property owners, 

community residents, and businesses, such as the loss of small businesses 

or the dispersal of residents who relied upon each other in informal 

networks. In addition to the losses to the community, the property rights 

groups noted that the manner in which authorities implement procedures 

for using eminent domain also affects property owners. For example, 

national and local property rights groups identified problems with how 

some authorities communicate with property owners, designate areas as 

blighted, and value property. 

The use of eminent domain generates benefits and costs that could affect 

various parties—such as property owners, businesses, authorities, and city

officials—whose interests may diverge. The great variety in benefits and 

costs makes it difficult to establish objective measures to examine the 

overall impact of projects involving eminent domain. In addition, the lack 

of aggregated data on the purpose and frequency of eminent domain use 

further limits this effort. However, for selected projects where eminent 

domain was used that we reviewed or visited, authorities described the 

previous conditions of the selected areas and they told us, or in some 

instances we observed, some of the benefits realized by communities after 

the projects were completed. 

Prior to condemnation, according to local and state officials, a variety of 

conditions existed in selected areas in which eminent domain was used. 

For example, according to city officials, some of the urban areas slated for 

redevelopment included buildings in substandard condition. Many 

buildings were vacant or abandoned with few or no improvements made 

for multiple years; some properties had missing window glass, collapsed 

Use of Eminent 

Domain Generates 

Benefits and Costs 

Affecting a Wide 

Array of Community 

Interests and 

Individuals 

In Cases We Reviewed, 

Conditions of Condemned 

Property Varied 

Page 28 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
roofs, accumulated debris on the parcel, and other conditions that created 

a public health hazard. However, in some cases that we reviewed, 

authorities acquired occupied residences and operating businesses to 

redevelop an area. In one area, a building occupied by long-standing 

businesses providing retail services to the neighborhood was under threat

of condemnation by eminent domain. Although this building was not 

unusually dilapidated, it was within a redevelopment area designated as 

blighted, and thus subject to acquisition by eminent domain.

According to local and state officials, road conditions in some projects 

reviewed included inadequately sized or dilapidated streets, sidewalks, or 

curbs. Traffic flow and access in some neighborhoods were poorly 

planned. For example, industrial traffic reportedly moved through 

residential areas in one project we reviewed. In other road or highway 

projects, according to state transportation officials, conditions included 

operable, but older roads requiring modernization, such as new 

interchanges to better handle traffic. Other roads required new safety 

features, such as turning or deceleration lanes, or straightening of tight 

curves in the road. We also reviewed other types of infrastructure projects, 

such as the New York City water tunnel previously discussed. According 

to city officials, the condition of the original water tunnels servicing the 

metropolitan area was questionable because they had not been inspected

since being built in the early twentieth century. 

Condemned property is often redeveloped as part of a larger 

redevelopment or improvement project. City officials considered 

outcomes of these projects as benefits to the community, and emphasized 

that they could not have completed the projects without the use of 

eminent domain. However, authorities told us they often obtain much of

the land for projects, including urban redevelopment projects,

transportation projects, utility projects and others, through negotiated 

purchases and condemn a small number of the needed properties. 

Therefore, benefits to the community cannot be attributed solely to the 

use of eminent domain and are more likely the result of the redevelopment 

projects for which eminent domain was used. 

According to local and state officials and based on some of the projects we 

observed, the redeveloped areas have a variety of characteristics. In urban 

areas, redevelopment led to additional housing stock (including affordable

housing set asides), new commercial centers with additional local job 

opportunities, reduced crime in some areas, and modernized 

infrastructure. For example, in Chicago, the downtown redevelopment of 

Characteristics of Selected 

Redeveloped Areas Varied, 

with Local and State 

Officials Often Reporting 

Resulting Community 

Benefits 

Page 29 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
a sparsely occupied block produced a 27-story municipal building, which 

city officials described as fully leased with retail stores and office space, 

including a parking garage and a mass transit station serving many parts of 

the city, including both airports. In New York City, the Department of 

Housing Preservation and Development used eminent domain to assemble 

land for the Melrose Commons project in the South Bronx. The agency is 

working with several private and nonprofit developers to construct over 

3,200 affordable housing units to turn what a high-level official 

characterized as one of the most blighted areas in the city into a thriving 

neighborhood. 

Officials cited benefits from transportation projects that include safer, 

more efficient roadways and traffic patterns. In Los Angeles, the widening

of a street from two lanes to four lanes with center left turn lanes 

alleviated what officials described as perennial congestion, provided 

additional parking, and reduced accidents on a major artery in the western 

part of the city. Additional improvements resulting from this project 

included new curbs, gutters, street lighting, traffic signals, sewers, and 

storm drains. 

City officials cited other types of improvements resulting from 

redevelopment, such as less contaminated land and new public green 

space or parks. According to Baltimore officials, sometimes vacant lots are

acquired and provided to community groups for gardens. New York City 

officials explained that eminent domain could be an important tool to 

acquire brownfields in the city for remediation, although authorities there 

have yet to do so. Much of the 581 miles of waterfront in New York City 

has been contaminated in the past. According to officials, many 

developers are not interested in developing contaminated waterfront 

properties because they do not want to be liable for cleaning up the 

contamination. Property owners also may be unable or unwilling to sell 

properties that are or may be contaminated; thus, the city could acquire

the properties through eminent domain, decontaminate them, and put the 

land to public use. 

Property owners, property rights groups, and national community-based 

organizations described a number of negative effects from using eminent 

domain. For example, properties acquired through eminent domain may 

remain unused for some time, according to city officials and a property 

rights group. As an example, in downtown Chicago in 1989, the city 

condemned 16 improved, occupied buildings (one with historic landmark 

status the city had removed prior to condemnation) for a two-tower office 

Property Owners and 

Groups Representing 

Them Reported Negative 

Effects on Communities 

from Eminent Domain Use 

Page 30 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
and retail development. Because of a downturn in the local real estate

market, the proposed project did not begin. However, according to 

Chicago officials, a $500 million development is now under construction 

on the long vacant land. In another example, Los Angeles acquired an 

industrially zoned parcel through eminent domain to build an animal 

shelter. According to city officials, to preserve the parcel for commercial 

use, the city is considering an alternate site for the animal shelter. As a 

result, the condemned property remains unused to date. In both of these 

instances, the cities expended public funds acquiring the land, including 

legal costs associated with invoking eminent domain. 

Property rights groups and one national community organization further 

noted that certain costs to communities may not be compensated when 

eminent domain is used. These issues include the dispersal of residents in 

low-income communities to other neighborhoods or cities. The residents 

of low-income neighborhoods may rely on one another for day-to-day 

needs such as child care, according to the community organization. If 

these residents lose their homes through eminent domain and are 

relocated to new areas, then some of the resources upon which they 

depend also can be lost. Property rights and community groups added that 

owners also suffer emotional costs when losing a home. Making people 

leave their homes can be destabilizing to individuals or families even when 

relocation costs are provided. 

Property rights groups also noted other community impacts, such as rent 

destabilization in neighborhoods affected by eminent domain and a 

reduction in an area’s affordable housing stock when units are acquired 

and replaced by commercial developments. Other potential costs to the 

community that the groups mentioned include reductions in 

homeownership and the number of small businesses in an area. 

Furthermore, according to one property rights group, there is a tendency 

for cities to use eminent domain to remove manufacturing companies and 

replace them with retail businesses to collect increased sales revenue.

However, removing manufacturing companies may have a negative effect

on the community because it decreases the number of manufacturing jobs 

that are available. 

Page 31 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
The procedural requirements we previously described could provide some 

safeguards for property owners, such as ensuring that they receive timely

public notice and just compensation. However, the effectiveness of the 

procedures depends on how well they are implemented by the authority 

invoking eminent domain. Property owners and property rights advocates

we interviewed identified problems with how some authorities 

communicate with property owners, designate areas as blighted, and value

property. Property rights advocates also expressed concern that owners 

may not fully comprehend the benefits available to them when an 

authority acquires their property. 

Multiple owners and property rights groups with whom we met reported 

receiving little advanced, misleading, or no notice of public hearings or 

proposed condemnation actions by the relevant authority. These problems 

may prevent owners from voicing concerns about the proposed acquisition 

of their properties. For example, property rights groups in Los Angeles 

told us that many owners do not receive the statement of interest-owner 

participation letter that the authorities told us they send to all owners 

during the planning stage of each project. Property rights groups in Denver

and New York said that notice was posted on signage, but not sent in a 

letter. According to the Denver group, the method of posting a notice at 

one site would not disseminate information about public hearings to most 

owners in a community. In another locality, the public notice that property 

owners received was reportedly not clear. For example, one authority sent 

a notice informing the owners of the redevelopment project and their 

responsibilities in a format that some owners confused with junk mail; it 

did not resemble an official letter. Finally, in Denver, property rights 

advocates told us that owners need notice earlier in the process. They said

that owners learn about the condemnation after the initial planning has 

occurred and the urban renewal area has been designated. However, 

authorities in cities we visited consistently said that they always sent 

notice to owners of hearings—which give affected property owners 

multiple opportunities to voice concerns about the proposed plan and 

potential property acquisition—and sent notice of acquisition activities as

required in all applicable laws and regulations. 

Even when notice is received, owners may not have the financial or 

technical ability to fully comprehend what actions an authority is taking, 

what recourse they may have, or where to go to for assistance in 

understanding the proceedings or terms mentioned in the notice. For 

instance, one authority sent a statement of interest-owner participation 

letter to property owners stating that a redevelopment project was 

proposed for their area. The letter states that owners may, within 30 days,

Property Owners and 

Groups Representing 

Them Raised Concerns 

about the Land Acquisition 

and Eminent Domain 

Processes 

Owners May Not Receive 

Public Notices and May Have 

Limited Opportunity to Speak 

at Public Hearings 

Page 32 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
propose their own alternative plan for redevelopment of the area. 

However, property rights groups explained that most owners do not have 

the money or skills needed to develop and execute a redevelopment plan. 

On the other hand, officials in this locality explained that multiple public 

funds and technical assistance were available to help owners formulate 

alternative business development plans. The letter of intent, officials said, 

provided the owners needed information about how to access these public

benefits, remain in the community during redevelopment, and ultimately 

benefit from the project.

One local organization involved in urban redevelopment explained that

local public hearings and the voting on proposed project plans (which may 

provide authorities the power to take property) by governmental bodies, 

such as city councils, occurred on different dates. Of concern was that the 

votes would happen without public attendance, thereby reducing the 

transparency of the process. Furthermore, a concern was raised about the 

time owners had to speak at hearings. In one locality, each owner was 

reportedly allowed only three minutes to address the elected body that 

would decide to approve or deny the project plan in which eminent 

domain might be used.49

To facilitate better communication between property owners and 

government authorities looking to assemble land, some states, such as 

Utah, have established a Property Rights Ombudsman’s office.50 According 

to the current official in Utah, the ombudsman is an attorney hired by the 

state as an independent source of information and assistance for property 

owners and others involved in the acquisition of property for public 

projects. The ombudsman, who provides services free of charge to 

owners, can mediate disputes, arrange for arbitration, order appraisals, 

and provide information to property owners and governmental authorities 

acquiring land. Connecticut and Missouri reportedly have recently adopted 

statutes creating property rights ombudsman-type offices. 

 49Officials from the National Academy of Public Administration told us that academy panels

generally encourage improved communication between government agencies and the

public and have put forth six principles of effective consultation. These include having an

inclusive and well-known process, stakeholders being assisted to participate effectively, 

two-way exchange of information, timely access to decision makers and feedback to 

stakeholders, stakeholder satisfaction with the process, and stakeholder influence on

results.

50Utah Code Ann. § 13-42-101-206. 

Page 33 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Many property rights groups and owners with whom we spoke were 

critical of blight designation processes in their localities. They said that 

nonblighted property parcels may be designated blighted because of 

factors such as design flaws, high density, turnover of occupants, and 

irregularly shaped parcels. According to some property rights groups, by 

these criteria almost any property or area in question may be considered 

blighted. They felt that blight should be defined narrowly based mainly on

public health and safety risks from a specific property. 

According to officials from one national organization, farmland may be 

wrongly designated as blighted. Many farms have older and what may 

appear to be dilapidated homes and barns, or old storage sheds and 

tractors, which makes the property especially susceptible to a blight 

designation. The officials added, however, that these buildings and 

machines are often fully functional or operable, meet housing or farm 

needs, and pose no public danger. 

In the projects we reviewed where eminent domain was used to remove 

blight, blight was almost always designated by area (such as a city block) 

rather than by parcel. Owners and property rights groups opposed to this

practice stated that nonblighted property can then be taken based on this 

area-wide designation. During the project planning stage, usually for 

projects that are considered urban redevelopment or blight removal, 

authorities designate the physical boundaries of areas selected for 

redevelopment and determine the presence of blight in the area. This 

designation is often then applied to all parcels in the area which, in turn, 

allows authorities to acquire any property in the designated area. Property 

owners and community groups argue that not all property in such areas is

blighted; rather, many properties are improved and occupied.

Furthermore, we were told that the planning stage and blight designation 

can occur years before an authority is able to commence acquisition and 

construction in the area. For example, one area we reviewed initially was 

deemed blighted in 1986. The blight designation, and with it the threat of 

eminent domain, destabilized property values in the neighborhood for 

nearly 20 years, according to one owner. Although the area has been an

official redevelopment area since 1986, local officials told us that state 

redevelopment law limits a blight designation to 12 years. The authority is

then required by law to return to the deciding elected body to again prove 

blight before the authority is able to move forward with the project. 

Property rights groups also expressed concerns that blight may be 

exacerbated by the redevelopment activity and has been termed 

Blight Designations May Be 

Broadly Construed and Affect 

Nonblighted Properties 

Page 34 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
“developer blight”—that is, the physical decline of a parcel or area, such as

a city block, once a redevelopment project has been announced. For 

example, in Denver, a property rights group told us that it is difficult to 

isolate the causes and effects of blight in their area because once an area

is designated as blighted its decline might hasten. The public knowledge of 

the impending redevelopment and related property acquisition, according 

to one concerned group, can cause property values to fluctuate and 

discourage property owners from maintaining their dwellings or 

businesses or, in other words, cause an area to become blighted. In one

neighborhood, according to a local property rights group, improved 

residential buildings were largely occupied and multiple businesses were 

open prior to the announcement of a redevelopment project. However, 

once the project was announced and the authority began the project 

design and planning stage, the developer purchased many of the properties 

and over time, failed to maintain them properly. This activity, according to

the property rights group, constituted developer-initiated blight in the 

neighborhood. Remaining owners are concerned that “developer blight” 

has reduced their property values and that they will not receive what they 

consider just compensation from the authority as the project proceeds. 

Another group suggested that redevelopment plans and blight designations 

may prevent new businesses from relocating to a neighborhood that was 

revitalizing on its own because of the public’s awareness that authorities 

will have the power to use eminent domain in the area. Authority officials 

told us that areas they seek for redevelopment are not revitalizing on their 

own, but rather declining and becoming further blighted. 

While property valuation is intended to provide property owners 

compensation at fair market value for their property, property rights 

groups and owners expressed concern about the reasonableness of 

property appraisals. Multiple property rights groups believed that localities 

undervalue property and make offers lower than owners would receive on 

the market. One group cited large differentials between final jury awards 

and first appraisal amounts in cases in which owners challenged a 

condemnation. Owners in this property rights organization who challenged 

initial offers reported receiving an average of 40 percent more in 

compensation than the initial offer. Conversely, officials of the local

authority claim that it would be to their detriment to make an 

unreasonably low offer at any stage in the negotiation process because an

offer not in good faith might enable a jury to award additional damages to 

a prevailing owner. 

Some believe that property is undervalued because of when appraisals 

take place. In New York, one owner, attempting to remain in his home, 

Some Property Owners Claim 

They Received Insufficient 

Compensation and Others 

Faced High Costs to Challenge 

Condemnation or 

Compensation 

Page 35 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
stated that if he were eventually required to sell his property, it would be 

appraised long after all other neighborhood owners had settled and moved 

away. With most of the neighborhood acquired, the owner believed that, 

should he lose his bid to keep his property, the value of his property would 

be lower than when the neighborhood was fully occupied. One state 

mediator of property disputes explained that an approved redevelopment 

area creates a hardship for owners, which is exacerbated when the project 

construction date is unknown. Owners in this case may have a more 

difficult time selling their property on the open market because it is within 

a redevelopment zone and subject to eminent domain. On the other hand, 

in one city we reviewed, buyers actively sought property in areas slated for 

redevelopment because the prospect of an authority acquiring the 

property was high. 

Property rights groups also noted that property and business owners may 

be uninformed about the benefits provided to them once their property is 

taken by eminent domain. In Denver, a property rights group stated that 

owners did not always realize that money was available for relocation 

benefits. In other localities, property rights groups noted that owners 

might have known that some financial support was available, but might 

not have been aware of the range of benefits. However, property rights 

groups also stated that acquisition and eminent domain can cost business 

owners more than the amount compensated for under the URA or state 

and local relocation regulations. For example, the URA may often only 

partially cover expenses related to either lost inventory or transferring 

inventory to the new location. Moreover, businesses are not compensated 

for lost goodwill or for loss of business attributable to the new location 

under the URA. 

Multiple property rights groups further explained that owners often are 

unable to fight a condemnation action if they want to retain their homes or 

businesses or seek additional compensation because costs related to 

hiring an appraiser or attorney, as well as court costs, are too high. 

Property rights groups believe that many owners sell their property under 

the threat of condemnation when they otherwise would not do so because

they cannot afford to fight the action, something which can take several 

years. In New York City, a contested condemnation can take more than 10 

years to settle, according to city officials we interviewed. Authorities 

counter that, under certain circumstances, there is money available to 

owners to fight eminent domain. In some localities, authorities can use 

quick take, in which the authority obtains the title of the property and 

deposits the estimated compensation with the court. Owners, authorities 

note, can withdraw these funds to challenge the authority’s valuation of 

Page 36 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
their property. However, a property rights group and a state mediator 

emphasized that the owners cannot use these funds to dispute the 

authority’s right to take the property. Challenges to the right to take must 

typically be made and heard prior to quick take procedures.51

According to one national organization, partial condemnations of farmland 

do not always result in just compensation. If authorities were to take only 

a portion of a farm and that portion ran directly through the middle of the 

property, the owner’s business could be negatively affected. For example, 

one state reportedly developed a toll road that ran through the middle of a 

farm property. The farmer was paid the value of the land taken by the 

authority, but according to this organization, the damage done to the 

farm’s business was not compensated. The road reduced the farm’s crop 

yield, forced the farmer to maintain equipment on both sides of the walled 

toll road, and necessitated the costly alteration of an irrigation system. 

Numerous states have adopted at least one of three general types of 

changes to their eminent domain laws since June 2005. In particular, some 

states amended their eminent domain laws and placed restrictions on the 

use of eminent domain for economic development, increasing tax 

revenues, or transferring condemned property from one private entity to

another. Other states revised their eminent domain procedures or added

requirements. Finally, some states defined or redefined key terms related 

to the use of eminent domain, such as blight or blighted property, public 

use, and economic development. Several states had ballot initiatives on 

constitutional amendments to restrict current eminent domain laws. In 

addition, some states, including those that did and did not enact any 

changes, commissioned studies on their state’s eminent domain laws. 

Since June 2005, 

Many State 

Legislatures Have 

Enacted Changes to 

Their Eminent 

Domain Laws 

 517-2 Nichols on Eminent Domain § 2.04 (2006). 

Page 37 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
After the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, 29 states enacted at least one of 

three general types of changes to their eminent domain laws from June 23, 

2005, through July 31, 2006.52 These changes include placing certain 

restrictions on the use of eminent domain, revising procedural 

requirements, and defining or redefining key eminent domain terms. While 

at least 3 of the 29 states specifically made reference to the Kelo decision 

in connection with their legislation, other states stated that the legislation

was enacted to protect property rights and limit eminent domain use. 

Figure 3 identifies the states that enacted changes and the types of 

changes they enacted to their eminent domain laws. 

Slightly More Than Half of 

All State Legislatures 

Modified Their Eminent 

Domain Laws 

 52The period of our analysis was from June 23, 2005, through July 31, 2006. We chose June 

23, 2005, as the start date because the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kelo on this date. 

During our analysis period, 21 states did not make any changes to their eminent domain 

laws. 

Page 38 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Figure 3: Changes to State Eminent Domain Laws from June 23, 2005, through July 31, 2006 

Restrictions on the use of eminent domain for certain purposes

Procedural changes

Changes in definitions

Sources: GAO (analysis); Art Explosion (map).

No enacted legislation during criteria period

According to our analysis, 23 of the 29 states enacted changes that placed

restrictions, with certain exceptions, on the use of eminent domain for 

economic development, increasing tax revenues, or transferring 

condemned property to a private entity (see fig. 3). Specifically, some of 

these states prohibited the use of eminent domain to transfer private 

property to a private entity for economic development unless the primary 

purpose of the use was to eliminate blight. For example, both Alabama 

and Maine now prohibit condemning authorities from taking property in a 

Restrictions on Eminent 

Domain Use for Certain 

Purposes 

Page 39 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
nonblighted area for purposes of private retail, office, commercial, 

residential, or industrial development or use. In addition, Ohio imposed a 

moratorium, through December 31, 2006, on the use of eminent domain to 

take land within a nonblighted area when the purpose is economic 

development that leads to ownership of the property being vested in 

another private person. Furthermore, Florida prohibits the use of eminent 

domain to take private property for the purpose of preventing or 

eliminating slum or blight conditions. 

However, most of the states that enacted changes restricting the use of 

eminent domain for economic development, increasing tax revenues, or 

transferring condemned property to a private entity did make an 

allowance for the transfer of private property to a private entity for public

rights of way and public utilities. Some states included other exceptions. 

For example, Alabama, Kansas, and Nebraska allow the use of eminent 

domain to clear a defective title under certain circumstances. 

Twenty-four of the 29 states changed their eminent domain procedures or 

added new requirements (see also fig. 3). Some states placed the burden of

proof on the condemning authority to show that the use is public, the 

taking is necessary to remove blight, or both. For example, Colorado law 

states that the condemning authorities must prove by a preponderance of

evidence that the eminent domain taking is for a public use. Furthermore, 

Colorado law sets a higher standard if the purpose is to eliminate blight—

requiring condemning authorities to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that the taking is necessary for the elimination of blight. 

Procedural Changes 

In addition, some of these states require condemning authorities to 

provide improved or additional public notice and hearings prior to 

condemning a property. Utah law requires that written notice be provided 

to the property owner of each public meeting at which a vote on the 

proposed taking is expected to occur and that the property owner must be

given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed taking. West Virginia 

redefined the requirement for public notice to require a certified letter be

sent to the property owner informing the owner about the public hearing 

and the right to an inspection to determine if the property is blighted. 

Some states also passed changes requiring condemning authorities to 

negotiate in good faith and increase the level of compensation to be paid

to owners prior to invoking eminent domain. For example, in Missouri 

condemning authorities are required to establish requirements for the 

amount of compensation, which may be more than the fair market value. 

Missouri law also requires condemning authorities to pay, in addition to

Page 40 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
the fair market value, a “heritage” value for certain property owned by the 

same family for more than 50 years, which is equal to 50 percent of the fair

market value of the property. Other procedural changes enacted by some 

of the states include providing the former owner of a condemned property 

the opportunity to purchase the property if it was not used within certain 

period of time or for the stated purpose and requiring the use of eminent

domain to be approved by a governing body. 

Twenty-one of the 29 states defined or redefined key terms related to the 

use of eminent domain, including blight or blighted property, public use, 

and economic development (see also fig. 3). In particular, some states 

redefined blight or blighted property to include several explicit factors, 

generally emphasizing factors that are detrimental to public health and

safety and removing aesthetic factors, such as irregular lot size. For 

example, California’s statutes require that for an area to be qualified for 

redevelopment it must be predominantly urbanized with a combination of 

physical and economic conditions of blight so prevalent and substantial 

that they can cause a serious physical and economic burden that cannot

be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action

alone, or in combination with each other, without redevelopment powers 

and financing mechanisms. Prior California law would have allowed, as an 

exception to its general rule, that property subdivided into parcels with 

irregular shapes and inadequate sizes for proper development could also 

to be considered as qualifying an areas as blighted for redevelopment 

purposes. California amended its definition to remove this exception. 

Changes in Definitions 

In addition, some states redefined public use to include the possession, 

occupation, or use of the public or government entity, public utilities, 

roads, and the addressing of blight conditions. For instance, Iowa defined 

public use to include acquisition by a public or private utility, common 

carrier, or airport or airport system necessary to its function. Indiana 

included highways, bridges, airports, ports, certified technology parks, and 

public utilities as public uses. Finally, some states also established that 

economic development—which was defined by those states to include 

activities to increase tax revenue, the tax base, employment, or general 

economic health—does not constitute public use or purpose. 

Page 41 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
At least six state legislatures approved constitutional amendments on 

restricting current eminent domain laws, which were placed on the ballot

for voter consideration.53 For example, the Louisiana legislature approved

two proposed constitutional amendments that were passed on September 

30, 2006, by the voters in that state. These two amendments, among other 

things, (1) prohibit the taking of private property for use by or transfer to a 

private person; (2) limit public purposes to a list of factors, which includes 

such purposes as the removal of a threat to public health and safety; (3) 

exclude economic development, enhancement of tax revenue, and 

incidental benefits to the public from being considered in the 

determination of a public purpose; and (4) provide an option for the 

former owner to purchase condemned property or a portion of it should 

the property go unused by the authority that originally acquired the 

property. In addition, citizen-initiated proposals to amend the state 

constitution obtained the requisite number of signatures and were placed 

on a ballot in California, Nevada, and North Dakota.54 For example, the 

Nevada Property Owners Bill of Rights initiative to amend the state 

constitution in regards to eminent domain qualified for the Nevada 2006 

general election ballot. The amendment would, among other things, 

establish just compensation as the amount necessary to place owners in 

the same position monetarily as if property had not been taken and 

prohibit the direct or indirect transfer of property from one private party 

to another. 

Several States Had 

Constitutional 

Amendments on Fall 

Ballots 

 53In addition to changing their eminent domain laws, Florida, Georgia, and New Hampshire 

also approved a constitutional amendment further restricting eminent domain laws that 

was placed on the states’ ballots for voter consideration. Michigan and South Carolina also 

had ballot measures related to eminent domain. Some other states had measures on their 

ballots regarding their eminent domain statutory laws, which we did not review because 

they were outside our period of analysis. According to each Secretary of State’s website, 

the proposed constitutional amendment was approved in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,

Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and South Carolina. 

54The California initiative approved for the ballot during the November 2006 election, if 

passed, would have, among other things, amended the state constitution to bar state and 

local governments from condemning private property and transferring it to another private 

party unless the transfer occurred under circumstances where the private party would

perform a public use project. The California initiative failed. California’s state legislature 

also enacted changes to its definition of blight, as noted in figure 2.

Page 42 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Several states and state associations also commissioned studies to 

determine if any changes were needed to their eminent domain laws. For 

example, in November 2005, the president of the New York State Bar 

Association appointed a special task force on eminent domain to provide 

legal analysis and recommendations about appropriate legislative and 

regulatory considerations in the practice of eminent domain law in the 

aftermath of the Kelo decision. According to a report issued by the task 

force, little state-specific research and data exist to accurately assess both 

the need for, and the impact of, changes to the state’s eminent domain 

laws.55 The task force suggested that the state legislature begin the 

collection and analysis of such data before deciding on appropriate 

substantive modifications to the law. For example, the report lists several 

questions that could be answered through empirical research, including 

how often condemnation proceedings are instituted and how many times 

eminent domain is used for economic development. Consequently, the 

task force recommended that a Temporary State Commission on Eminent 

Domain be established to further study the use of eminent domain in New 

York.56

Some States or State 

Associations also 

Commissioned Studies on 

the Use of Eminent 

Domain 

In June 2005, the Governor of Missouri established by executive order a 

task force to study the use of eminent domain, including when the 

property being acquired by eminent domain would not be directly owned 

or primarily used by the general public. The task force recommended 

three categories of actions: redefining the scope of eminent domain, 

improving the procedures and process required for exercising eminent 

domain, and providing penalties for condemning authorities that abuse the 

eminent domain process.57 As a result, the state enacted changes to its 

eminent domain laws in July 2006. The governor of New Mexico also 

issued an executive order in which he stated that the most effective

method of examining Kelo’s impact on the state’s eminent domain laws 

and practices was by convening a task force of the state’s eminent domain 

experts to determine what steps should be taken to ensure that 

 55New York State Bar Association, New York State Bar Association Special Task Force on 

Eminent Domain, New York State Bar Association Special Task Force on Eminent 

Domain Report (Mar. 2006). 

56Id. at 52. 

57State of Missouri, Missouri Eminent Domain Task Force, Final Report and

Recommendations of the Missouri Eminent Domain Task Force (Jefferson City, Mo.: Dec. 

30, 2005). 

Page 43 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
condemnation would be used responsibly. Therefore, he appointed a state 

commission to make recommendations on eminent domain reform. 

Finally, in November 2005, Ohio enacted legislation that created a task 

force to study the use and application of eminent domain in the state and

how the Kelo decision affects state law governing the use of eminent 

domain. On August 1, 2006, the task force issued its report, which, among

other things, recommended that the state retain the use of eminent domain 

as a tool for the elimination of blight, even if the property that is taken is 

converted to another private use; rewrite and tighten the definition of 

blight; and require that a majority of the properties in an area be blighted 

to designate it as such. The report also recommended (1) prohibiting 

eminent domain takings solely for the purpose of generating added tax 

revenue, (2) prohibiting declaring blight solely on the basis of additional 

revenue that could be generated, and (3) compensating the property 

owner for actual moving and relocation expenses, and, when appropriate,

loss of business, goodwill, and attorney’s fees.58

An inherent right of sovereignty, eminent domain is a government’s power 

to take private property for a public use while fairly compensating the 

property owner. Despite its fundamental significance, little is known about 

the practice or extent of the use of eminent domain in the United States.

The matter of eminent domain remains largely at the level of state and 

local governments that, in turn, delegate this power to their agencies or 

designated authorities. Since multiple authorities have the power to take 

private property within the same jurisdiction without any centralized 

tracking of eminent domain use, data such as the purpose for which 

eminent domain is used or the number of times eminent domain is used in 

a given locality are not readily available. The testimonial evidence we 

obtained from state and local authorities on the purposes for which 

eminent domain can be and was used generally pointed to long-established 

uses, such as taking land for infrastructure, particularly transportationrelated projects; uses that addressed economic and social conditions, such 

as blight; relatively more recent uses such as environmental remediation; 

Observations 

 58Ohio General Assembly, Legislative Task Force to Study Eminent Domain and Its Use and

Application in the State, Final Report of the Task Force to Study Eminent Domain

(Columbus, Ohio: Aug. 1, 2006). Indiana also commissioned a task force to study eminent

domain on May 6, 2005, which was prior to the date of the Kelo decision. See Indiana HEA

1063-2005 (P.L. 173-2005), and other states may have formed various groups, commissions 

or task forces to study eminent domain. 

Page 44 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
and initiatives aimed at promoting economic activity or community 

redevelopment. Recently, popular attention has concentrated on cases 

where the condemned land was ultimately used for economic 

development projects and appeared to benefit private entities. In the 

absence of statewide or nationwide data, it is difficult to quantify the 

usage of eminent domain; for example, there are no data on how 

frequently private-to-public or private-to-private transfer of property 

occurs or with what frequency eminent domain has been used by state and 

local governments, their agencies, or designated authorities. 

Concerns and debates on the use of eminent domain for economic 

development purposes, as well as the Kelo decision, have played a role in

recent state legislative activity. Many state legislatures have acted to 

prohibit certain eminent domain practices, such as preventing property 

from being transferred from one private party to another for specific 

purposes—for purely economic development projects, as an example. 

Many states changed their eminent domain laws to permit a private-toprivate transfer only if it meets certain conditions, such as the property 

having been determined to be blighted. Since these recent modifications to

state laws have not been tested and historical data on eminent domain use 

are not available for comparison purposes, how these laws may affect 

property rights or state and local government use of eminent domain is 

unclear. 

Our discussions with authorities and property rights groups suggest that 

the impact of eminent domain often depends on the nature of the project, 

the parties involved, costs related to legal proceedings and relocation, and 

the administration of procedural requirements. On the one hand, local and 

state government officials generally have described eminent domain as 

one of several tools necessary for land acquisition and explained that most 

of the properties assembled for projects are obtained through negotiated 

settlements with owners. Representatives from the authorities in cities we 

visited provided examples of how projects where land was assembled 

using eminent domain have yielded benefits to the public, including 

increased housing stock and new commercial centers that offer local job 

opportunities. On the other hand, property rights advocates described the 

high costs property owners faced in challenging property valuations and 

the intangible effects on neighborhoods when residents are involuntarily 

dispersed. Although we observed some of the benefits derived from the 

projects we visited and heard of instances in which property owners 

reportedly were misled by authorities about condemnation proceedings or 

appraisals, a lack of measures and aggregated data do not allow us to 

Page 45 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
make any comment on the overall impact eminent domain has had on 

property owners and communities. 

Regardless of their stance in the debate on eminent domain, government 

officials and property rights groups we interviewed identified a few 

concerns related to the procedures on invoking eminent domain, including

the adequacy of compensation amounts and the timeliness of notification 

about public hearings. First, many government officials we spoke with 

said that certain benefits provided under the URA, such as actual moving 

costs and expenses in finding a replacement site for businesses, to 

displaced individuals and businesses may not offer adequate 

compensation under certain circumstances. For example, the URA places 

a $10,000 cap— an amount left unchanged since 1987—on reestablishment 

expenses for businesses that have to relocate. A 2002 FHWA study 

confirmed the inadequacy of the reestablishment payments. Second, 

property owners and organizations advocating for property rights 

repeatedly told us that property owners may have limited opportunity or 

are unaware of the need to attend public hearings at a project’s planning 

stage to voice their opinions about the proposed acquisition of their 

property. For example, some property owners and property rights groups 

explained that property owners may not receive public notice on a timely

basis or that they may lack sufficient understanding of the legal process to 

be fully engaged in the hearing discussions. To address the latter issue, at 

least one state has created an ombudsman office to provide information 

and assistance for property owners and others involved in the acquisition 

of property for public projects. Nevertheless, these two concerns may 

deserve continued attention given that just compensation and public 

hearings are two important safeguards designed to protect property 

owners. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Justice, 

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development for their review. The 

Department of Transportation provided technical comments, which have 

been incorporated where appropriate. The Departments of Justice and 

Housing and Urban Development did not have any comments. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

We will send copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and 

Urban Development, and Related Agencies, Senate Committee on 

Appropriations; and the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 

Page 46 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, House Committee on 

Appropriations. We also will send copies to the Secretary of Housing and 

Urban Development, Secretary of Transportation, and the Attorney 

General. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix II.

William B. Shear 

Director, Financial Markets and 

 Community Investment 

Page 47 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology 

Methodology 

Congress, in the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban

Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent 

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, mandated that we conduct a 

nationwide study on the use of eminent domain. Our objectives were to 

provide information on (1) the purposes and extent for which eminent 

domain can be and has been used; (2) the process states and select 

localities across the country use to acquire land, including by eminent 

domain; (3) how the use of eminent domain has affected individuals and 

communities in select localities; and (4) the changes state legislatures 

made to laws governing the use of eminent domain from June 2005 

through July 2006. 

To report on the purposes for which eminent domain has been and can be

used, including the extent of its use, we reviewed pertinent sections of 

each state’s constitution to determine whether there is a general limitation 

on use of eminent domain in the state for public use only. We also 

reviewed specific blight definitions for 10 states we selected: California, 

Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Texas, 

Virginia, and Washington.1

 In addition, we interviewed multiple national

associations of local and state government officials and planning 

professionals, national public interest groups, national property rights 

groups, and the National Academy of Public Administration to gain their 

perspective on past, current, and potential uses of eminent domain. We 

also interviewed federal officials from the Departments of Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Justice, as well as the 

Environmental Protection Agency, to learn about how federal programs or 

funding may be involved in eminent domain proceedings that state and 

local governments undertake. Finally, we requested information from state 

legislative research offices on information related to which authorities 

within the selected state have the authority to use eminent domain. 

To learn about specific instances in which eminent domain was used, we 

collected project information from multiple sources. We solicited project

information from 10 different national organizations that had either 

 1

We selected 10 different states based on the 10 regions used by the U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in its quarterly report on the nation’s housing 

market to provide geographic diversity among the selected states. HUD’s regional 

framework was used because HUD has established programs (e.g., Community 

Development Block Grant Program) to provide states and localities funds for promoting 

community and economic development. From the 10 regions, we selected the state in each

region with the highest number of housing units (single and multifamily) authorized by 

building permits in 2003, 2004, and 2005 based on HUD data. 

Page 48 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 

testified before Congress on eminent domain matters or who met the 

criteria laid out in our mandate for types of organizations we were 

expected to consult during our study. We provided these 10 organizations 

with a formal request for project information. Our request included basic 

criteria that each submitted project should meet. The criteria were: 

eminent domain having been used (rather than only threatened), the 

project being substantially completed by December 2004, the project not

being primarily related to transportation, the project being located within

the 10 states we selected, and preferably, that the project be funded with 

some federal financial assistance. In addition, we explained to the 

organizations that we would accept projects that did not involve federal 

funds, as long as the other four criteria were met.2

 We requested that each 

organization provide at least 5 different projects within each of the 10

states we selected for review. 

In total, the 10 national organizations provided 134 projects. Based on the 

criteria outlined above, the desire to have at least one project in each of 

the selected states, and to provide a diversity of examples, we selected a 

total of 40 projects from the 134 for further review.

3

 To obtain further 

information on the projects, we made at least three attempts to contact 

each local authority responsible for completing or overseeing the project.

We completed contact with 36 of the 40 local authorities and learned that 9 

of the projects did not meet our criteria because eminent domain was not 

used, the project was not yet complete, or the project was located in a 

state not included in our 10 selected states. Of the 27 remaining projects 

for which we were able to confirm basic project information, such as the 

use of eminent domain or year of completion, we sent a detailed e-mail 

request for project information to individuals we contacted from the local

authority. Based on our conversations with the authorities responsible for 

the 27 projects, we scaled back the amount of information we were 

requesting and extended deadlines for providing the requested 

 2

We had anticipated gaining additional knowledge about projects from federal agencies, 

departments, and programs that may have offered some assistance to the selected projects. 

However, recognizing that not all projects selected may involve federal financial assistance

and that our mandate focused on state and local use of eminent domain, we did not want to

exclude any projects solely because federal resources were not used in the project. 

3

We selected 40 projects from the 134 received because project information provided was 

not always sufficient for us to determine whether to include a project in our review. For 

example, 27 percent, or 36 out of the 134, of the projects were either still in progress or the

completion date was unknown, according to the organization providing the project 

information. 

Page 49 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 

information. We received detailed project information for only 11 out of 

the 27 projects. 

In addition to efforts described above, we interviewed officials from state

departments of transportation of the 10 selected states. We decided to 

speak with these officials because interviews with national organizations 

and federal agencies and our literature research indicated that 

transportation-related projects often rely on eminent domain to assemble 

land. From these officials we also solicited detailed project information on 

transportation-related projects, mostly dealing with road improvements, 

construction, or expansion, in which eminent domain was used. From the 

state departments of transportation we received 6 projects in which 

eminent domain was used that also met the same criteria used to select

projects provided by the 10 national organizations. We also contacted 

several state agencies responsible for brownfield remediation, but were 

unable to receive any additional projects from these agencies.

To describe how state agencies and select localities invoke eminent 

domain, we relied on our interviews with the 10 state departments 

mentioned above. We discussed the state departments of transportation’s 

authority to invoke eminent domain, the planning phases they undertake, 

and their land acquisition and relocation processes. In addition, we 

interviewed officials from the 5 cities we visited: Baltimore, Maryland; 

Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, California; and New 

York, New York.4

 During our site visits, we learned about specific projects 

in which eminent domain was used according to the city officials, 14 of 

which we toured. City officials also provided written documentation 

related to the selected projects that included detailed project plans, court

documents, applicable state statutes and municipal codes, and relocation 

services provided to property owners and residents displaced due to 

eminent domain proceedings. Finally, we reviewed pertinent sections of 

each state’s constitution to determine whether there is a requirement for 

the payment of fair or just compensation paid to the owner whose 

property is taken by eminent domain. 

 4

To make effective use of time and resources, we first visited Baltimore, Maryland, to gain

some perspective on redevelopment projects that involved eminent domain use. Unable to

take into consideration the frequency of eminent domain use or generate a list of projects 

in which eminent domain was used by state or localities, we visited the four remaining 

cities based on geographic diversity, location within our 10 selected states, and availability 

of time and resources. 

Page 50 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 

To convey how eminent domain has affected property owners and 

communities in select localities, we interviewed national and local 

organizations that advocate for property rights, in addition to property 

owners who claimed to have been involved in eminent domain 

proceedings. In accordance with long-standing GAO policy, we excluded

eminent domain takings currently under litigation and, therefore, only 

focused on past instances involving eminent domain use. We discussed 

how eminent domain impacts property owners, businesses, and residents 

with affected owners and organizations that advocate for property rights. 

To report on the changes state legislatures had made to laws governing the 

use of eminent domain, we reviewed legal databases and various Webpublished information, such as the text or status of a bill, from state 

legislatures from all 50 states to determine in which states changes 

occurred. We then analyzed the state laws identified and grouped states 

based on our interpretation of those laws into three broad categories in 

order to more easily describe which states enacted certain types of 

provisions to their eminent domain laws. The three categories were: (1) 

states that placed restrictions on the use of eminent domain, such as 

prohibiting its use to increase property tax revenues, transfer condemned

property to a private entity, or to assemble land for projects that are solely

for economic development; (2) states that established additional 

procedural requirements, such as providing further public notice prior to 

condemnation; and (3) states that modified definitions for terms related to 

eminent domain use, such as blight or blighted property, public use, and

economic development. We only reviewed those changes to state law that

state legislatures passed and governors signed into law between June 23, 

2005, and July 31, 2006.5

 Related to other state and local laws referenced in

the report, we did not undertake any independent legal review of them or 

how those laws affect the use of eminent domain. To identify state 

requirements regarding eminent domain procedures, we relied on the state 

and local officials we interviewed and the information they provided. In 

the time frame allotted for our study, we could not review all pertinent 

state requirements regarding eminent domain authorities and procedures. 

In addition to the work outlined above, we conducted an extensive 

literature search to assist us in meeting our objectives. Primarily, we 

searched for other reports, studies, and academic papers that may have 

tallied or assembled data sets on eminent domain use, or developed 

 5

The period covers approximately 1 year after the Kelo decision. 

Page 51 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and 

Methodology 

measures to assess the impact of eminent domain. To refer to or analyze 

data collected by others, we had to satisfy our criteria for identifying 

reliable and valid data, which include testing the methods and procedures 

others used in collecting the data. Although we identified some studies 

that were useful in providing us context and outlining barriers to 

collecting and analyzing data related to eminent domain use, we did not 

find any with data that met our criteria.6

 Our literature review did provide 

many articles, reports, and reviews of matters related to eminent domain. 

However, none provided an analysis of detailed data related to eminent 

domain use. 

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards from January through November 2006 in 

Baltimore, Maryland; Chicago, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; Los Angeles, 

California; New York, New York; and Washington, D.C. 

 6

In addition to time and resource constraints, the lack of any systematic data that met our 

criteria prohibited us from performing other types of analyses. For example, we did not

undertake any cost-benefit analyses of specific projects or purposes, since no data existed 

that quantified the various costs and benefits attributed to the various parties involved in 

an eminent domain taking. Also, we could not undertake a case study approach, primarily 

because the various involved parties could not be readily located, such as property owners 

who had moved due to the eminent domain taking. 

Page 52 GAO-07-28 Eminent Domain
Appendix II: 

A

GAO Contacts and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 53 GAO-07-28 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

William B. Shear, (202) 512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov 

In addition to the individual named above, Karen Tremba (Assistant 

Director), Alexander Galuten, Alison Martin, Marc Molino, Josephine 

Perez, Linda Rego, Barbara Roesmann, Julie Trinder, Mijo Vodopic, 

Kristen Waters, and Nicolas Zitelli made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(250277) Eminent Domain
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER