Document: 447 U.S. 255 100 S.Ct. 2138 65 L.Ed.2d 106 Donald W. AGINS et ux., Appellants,v.CITY OF TIBURON. No. 79-602. Argued April 15, 1980. Decided June 10, Syllabus After appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land in appellee city for residential development, the was required by California law to prepare a general plan governing use and development open-space land. In response, adopted zoning ordinances that placed appellants' property zone which may be devoted one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, uses, with density restrictions permitting build between one single-family residences on their tract. Without having sought approval tract under ordinances, brought suit against state court, alleging taken without just compensation violation Fifth Fourteenth Amendments, seeking inter alia, declaration were facially unconstitutional. The city's demurrer claiming complaint failed cause action sustained trial Supreme Court affirmed. Held : face do not take compensation. Pp. 260-263. (a) substantially advance legitimate governmental goal discouraging premature unnecessary conversion urban uses are proper exercises police power protect its residents from ill effects urbanization. 261-262. (b) Appellants will share other owners benefits burdens exercise such power, assessing fairness these must considered along any diminution market value might suffer. P. 262. (c) Although limit they neither prevent best nor extinguish fundamental attribute ownership. Since at this juncture free pursue reasonable investment expectations submitting city, it cannot said impact has denied them "justice fairness" guaranteed Amendments. 262-263. 1 24 Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25, 2 Gideon Kanner, Los Angeles, Cal., appellants. 3 E. Clement Shute, Jr., San Francisco, appellee. 4 [Amicus Curiae Information page 256-257 intentionally omitted] 5 Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 6 question case is whether municipal took 7 * Tiburon, both Cal.Govt.Code Ann. §§ 65302(a) (e) (West Supp.1979); see § 65563. two modified existing requirements. Ordinances Nos. 123 N.S. 124 (June 28, 1973). "RPD-1," Residential Planned Development Open Space Zone. RPD-1 uses. Density permit 5-acre never have ordinances.1 8 filed two-part State Superior first $2 million damages inverse condemnation.2 second requested gravamen claims assertion alleged Tiburon greater than suburban California. App. 3. ridgelands own "possess magnificent views Francisco Bay scenic surrounding areas [and] highest values all lands" Tiburon. Id., 4. Rezoning "forever prevented [its] use. . ." 5. Therefore, contended, "completely destroyed [appellants'] purpose or whatsoever. 7.3 9 demurred, action. demurrer,4 25 (1979). condemnation claim. It held landowner who challenges constitutionality ordinance "sue thereby transmute an excessive into lawful taking eminent domain paid." 273, 375, P.2d, 28. sole remedies taking, court concluded, mandamus declaratory judgment. Turning therefore claim relief, deprived Amendment.5 10 We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 1011, 658, 62 639 (1980). now affirm holding does compensation.6 II 11 Amendment guarantees private shall "be public use, compensation." framed as prohibits rejected characterization issue holding, matter law, terms challenged allow construct property. did consider would unconstitutional if applied building homes. Because submitted permit, there yet no concrete controversy regarding application specific provisions. See Socialist Labor Party v. Gilligan, 406 583, 588, 92 1716, 1719, 32 317 (1972). also Goldwater Carter, 996, 997, 533, 534, 428 (1979) (POWELL, J., concurring). Thus, only properly before us mere enactment constitutes taking. 12 particular interests, Nectow Cambridge, 277 183, 188, 48 447, 448, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928), denies owner economically viable his land, Penn Central Transp. Co. New York City, 438 104, 138, n. 36, 98 2646, 2666, 57 631 (1978). determination is, essence, large, rather single owner, bear burden interest. precise rule determines when been taken, Kaiser Aetna United States, 164, 383, 332 (1979), necessarily requires weighing interests. seminal decision Euclid Ambler Co., 272 365, 47 114, 71 303 (1926), illustrative. case, restricted commercial Despite owner's laws constitutional. They bore substantial relationship welfare, inflicted irreparable injury upon landowner. 395-397, S.Ct., 121. 13 goals. determined local plans discourage "premature uses." 65561(b) Supp.1979).7 regulations urbanization.8 Such purposes long recognized legitimate. supra, U.S., 129, 2662; Village Belle Terre Boraas, 416 1, 9, 94 1536, 1541, 39 797 (1974); 394-395, 120-121. 14 place limited Construction permitted until builder submits compatible "adjoining patterns open space." Ordinance 2(F). passing plan, how well proposed preserve environment new construction offset adjoining spaces. Ibid. benefit serving interest assuring careful orderly provision areas. There indication affected ordinances. power. 15 States Causby, 328 256, 262, 7, 66 1062, 1066, 90 1206 (1946), ownership, 179-180, 393. wish develop purposes, most expensive State, possible residential. 3-4. decided, many houses prime At juncture, officials. land-use SeePenn 124, 2659.9 III 16 could recover even constituted stated judgment available occurred, we need person whose 17 18 Affirmed. Shortly after enacted began proceedings following year, however, abandoned those proceedings, dismissed. reimbursed costs incurred connection Inverse should distinguished domain. Eminent refers legal proceeding government asserts authority condemn Clarke, 445 253, 255-258, 1127, 1129-1130, 63 373 "a shorthand description manner recovers instituted." 257, 1130. contended aborted attempt acquire through during pendency proceedings. 10. granted leave amend judgment, but avail themselves opportunity. argument institution abandonment found acted reasonably planning decisions violate Amendment. contend courts erred sustaining despite uncontroverted allegations preven[t] use," id., 5, destro[y] [appellant's] whatsoever .," 7. compared express factual complaint. contention Under practice, true unless "contrary fact judicial notice." Dale City Mountain View, 55 Cal.App.3d 101, 105, 127 520, 522 (1976); Martinez Socoma Cos., 394, 399-400, 113 585, 521 841, 844 (1974). notice Cal.Evid.Code 452(b) 1966). merely inconsistent explicit review. objection Court's raise federal appropriate review Patterson Colorado ex rel. Attorney General, 205 454, 461, 27 556, 557, 51 879 (1907). recognizes preservation space necessary "for assurance continued availability production food fiber, enjoyment beauty, recreation natural resources." 65561(a) 1(f) (h). Council "[i]t avoid strictly protecting resultant adverse impacts, air, noise water pollution, traffic congestion, destruction disturbance ecology environment, hazards related geology, fire flood, demonstrated consequences sprawl." 1(c). precondemnation activities constitute nn. 3, supra. correctly municipality's good-faith activities, result successful prosecution claim, so burdened Walnut Creek Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 73 611, 620-624, 140 690, 695-697 (1977). Even ability sell proceeding, ended. Mere fluctuations process decisionmaking, absent extraordinary delay, "incidents 'taking' constitutional sense." Danforth 308 271, 285, 60 231, 236, 84 240 (1939). Thomas Garland, Inc. St. Louis, 596 F.2d 784, 787 (CA8), cert. denied, 899, 208, 135 (1979); Reservation Eleven Associates District Columbia, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 315-316, 420 153, 157-158 (1969); Virgin Islands 50.05 Acres Land, 185 F.Supp. 495, 498 (V.I.1960); J. Sackman & Rohan, Nichols' Law Domain 6.13[3] (3d ed. 1979).

Category: 7