Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/24/266.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:17:19+00:00

Document:
Ronald A. Zumbrun, Thomas E. Hookano and Elleene A. Kirkland as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Robert I. Conn, City Attorney, Gary T. Ragghianti and Richard H. Breiner, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendants and Respondents.
Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, E. Clement Shute, Jr., Robert H. Connett, Assistant Attorneys General, and Richard C. Jacobs, Deputy Attorney General, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.
We review the availability of inverse condemnation as a landowners remedy when a public agency has adopted a zoning ordinance which Substantially limits Use of his property. We will conclude that although a landowner so aggrieved may challenge both the constitutionality of the ordinance and the manner in which it is applied to his [24 Cal. 3d 270] property by seeking to establish the invalidity of the ordinance either through the remedy of declaratory relief or mandamus, he may not recover damages on the theory of inverse condemnation.
Plaintiffs own five acres of unimproved land in the City of Tiburon, Marin County. Tiburon has an area of 1,676 acres, a population of approximately 6,000, and because of its proximity to San Francisco, its aquatic facilities, temperate climate, and other geographic advantages, is a very desirable suburban residential area. Plaintiffs' real property is ridgeland, possesses views of San Francisco Bay, and was acquired by plaintiffs for residential development.
Routinely, the development of a general plan entails a careful examination of numerous social and economic factors. Many cities, especially those which are too small to maintain a staff of sufficient size and technical expertise to undertake such a project, seek the advice of expert consultants. The recommendations of these consultants are considered when the local governmental entity prepares its general plan.
By Ordinance No. 124 N.S., effective June 28, 1973, Tiburon adopted widespread zoning modifications which drew upon but did not mirror the consultants' reports. Under the ordinance, plaintiffs' land was designated "RPD-1," defined by Ordinance No. 123 N.S. as a "Residential Planned Development and Open Space Zone." The authorized uses of land so designated are (1) one-family dwellings, (2) open space uses, and (3) accessory buildings and accessory uses. The permissible density of buildings is "not less than .2 nor more than 1 dwelling unit per gross acre" depending on other specified provisions. As applied to plaintiffs' five acres "RPD-1" zoning means a maximum of five dwelling units or a minimum of one. Whether plaintiffs are permitted to build five dwelling units, or fewer, will depend upon the particular architectural design contemplated and the results of the required environmental impact report.
Plaintiffs have never made application to use or improve their property following Tiburon's adoption of Ordinance No. 124 N.S., nor have they either sought or received any definitive statement as to how many dwelling units they could build on their land. On October 15, 1973, plaintiffs filed a claim against the City of Tiburon in the amount of $2 million alleging that the adoption of Ordinance No. 124 N.S. had completely destroyed the value of their property. The city rejected the claim on November 12, 1973.
On December 4, 1973, Tiburon filed a complaint in eminent domain against plaintiffs to acquire their property, but on November 1, 1974, filed a notice of abandonment of the proceedings as then authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1255a, subdivision (a). (This section was repealed by Stats. 1975, ch. 1275, § 1.) The trial court entered its judgment of dismissal of the action on May 20, 1975. The city paid plaintiffs $4,500 for their necessary expenses incurred during the pendency of the action pursuant to section 1255a, subdivision (c), which then fixed the rights of a condemnee upon abandonment of a condemnation proceeding. The remedy was exclusive and the section did not include, as an element of damages, financial impairment during pendency of the eminent domain action of the owner's right to sell. Accordingly, there was no further cause of action available to plaintiffs by reason of the city's eminent domain proceeding.
On June 16, 1975, plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Marin County Superior Court against the City of Tiburon and Does One through Fifty alleging, as a first cause of action, a claim in inverse condemnation for $2 [24 Cal. 3d 272] million damages and requesting, in a second cause of action, declaratory relief, asserting, among other things, that Ordinance No. 124 N.S. is unconstitutional in that it "constitutes a taking of [plaintiffs'] property without payment of just compensation."
Defendants' general demurrer to the first cause of action (inverse condemnation) was sustained without leave to amend. Similarly, their demurrer to the second cause of action (declaratory relief) was sustained with 10 days leave to amend. Plaintiffs declined to amend their second cause of action and plaintiffs appeal from the ensuing judgment of dismissal with prejudice.
We have previously pointed to the general nature of the appropriate remedy in such cases. In State of California v. Superior Court (Veta) (1974) 12 Cal. 3d 237 [115 Cal. Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281], real parties had been granted a permit to develop their coastal lands by a regional commission. They brought suit when a permit was denied following an appeal to the California Coastal Zone Commission. We held that declaratory relief was an appropriate remedy by which to seek a [24 Cal. 3d 273] declaration that a statute controlling development of coastal lands was facially unconstitutional. Further, insofar as the challenge was to the constitutionality of the act's application to the lands of the complaining parties, we concluded that the proper and sole remedy was administrative mandamus.
Similarly, a landowner alleging that a zoning ordinance has deprived him of substantially all use of his land may attempt through declaratory relief or mandamus to invalidate the ordinance as excessive regulation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 19, of the California Constitution. He may not, however, elect to sue in inverse condemnation and thereby transmute an excessive use of the police power into a lawful taking for which compensation in eminent domain must be paid. (See Friedman v. City of Fairfax (1978) 81 Cal. App. 3d 667, 678 [146 Cal. Rptr. 687].) To the extent that Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto (1976) 57 Cal. App. 3d 613 [129 Cal. Rptr. 575], is contrary, it is expressly disapproved.
[2a] There is a clear, direct and unquestionable constitutional basis for the protection of private property. Amendment V of the United States Constitution provides that "No person shall be ... deprived of ... property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In concert with the foregoing Fifth Amendment language article I section 19, of the California Constitution mandates that "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has been paid to, or into court for, the owner."
[2b] While acknowledging the power of government to preserve and improve the quality of life for its citizens through the regulation of the use of private land, we cannot countenance the service of this legitimate need through the uncompensated destruction of private property rights. [24 Cal. 3d 274] Such Fifth Amendment property rights have been equated by the constitutional draftsmen with the cherished personal protections against self-incrimination, double jeopardy, and the guarantee of due process of law. These rights are protected by the same amendment.
In balancing the constitutional rights of the landowner against the legitimate needs of government we do not ignore well established precedent. In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) 260 U.S. 393 [67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158, 28 A.L.R. 1321], an injunction was sought to prevent a coal company from causing subsidence of property due to the company's underground mining activities. This Supreme Court opinion has generated some confusion and has even been cited erroneously for the proposition that inverse condemnation is readily available as a remedy in zoning cases because of Justice Holmes' statement that "The general rule at least is, that while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." (Mahon, supra, at p. 415 [67 L.Ed. at p. 326].) It is clear both from context and from the disposition in Mahon, however, that the term "taking" was used solely to indicate the limit by which the acknowledged social goal of land control could be achieved by regulation rather than by eminent domain. The high court set aside the injunctive relief which had been granted by the Pennsylvania courts and declared void the exercise of police power which had limited the company's right to mine its land. The court did not attempt, however, to transmute the illegal governmental infringement into an exercise of eminent domain and the possibility of compensation was not even considered.
In HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 508 [125 Cal. Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237], we examined directly the problem of available remedies for aggrieved landowners and held that inverse condemnation does not lie in zoning actions in which the complaint alleges the mere reduction of market value, and that a zoning action which merely decreases the market value of property does not violate the constitutional provisions forbidding uncompensated taking or damaging of property. In HFH, Ltd. we specifically noted that "This case does not present, and we therefore do not decide, the question of entitlement to compensation in the event a zoning regulation forbade substantially all use of the land in question. We leave the question for another day." (P. 518, fn. 16, italics in original.) We now reach that issue.
[1b] In combination, the need for preserving a degree of freedom in the land-use planning function, and the inhibiting financial force which inheres in the inverse condemnation remedy, persuade us that on balance [24 Cal. 3d 277] mandamus or declaratory relief rather than inverse condemnation is the appropriate relief under the circumstances.
[4a] Having clarified the nature of the remedies available to an aggrieved landowner, we now consider whether the property owners before us established their right to declaratory relief. We conclude that they did not.
[4b] Accepting as we must the general proposition that whether a regulation is excessive in any particular situation involves questions of degree, turning on the individual facts of each case, we hold that a zoning ordinance may be unconstitutional and subject to invalidation only when its effect is to deprive the landowner of substantially all reasonable use of his property. The ordinance before us had no such effect. According to the wording of the ordinance, of which we may take note, the RPD-1 zoning allows plaintiffs to build between one and five residences on their property. This belies plaintiffs' claim that development of their land is forever prevented. Taking cognizance of the use which plaintiffs were entitled to make of their land the trial court was justified in finding that the ordinance did not unconstitutionally interfere with plaintiffs' entire use of the land or impermissibly decrease its value. The trial court acted properly in determining that plaintiffs were not, as a matter of law, entitled to a favorable judgment in declaratory relief.
 Plaintiffs also argue that the city's "precondemnation activities," those being the authorization of studies which recommended acquisition of plaintiffs' land for open space and bonds for its purchase, and the filing and subsequent abandonment of an eminent domain proceeding, were so unreasonable as to provide a separate basis for an action for inverse [24 Cal. 3d 278] condemnation. Plaintiffs err and we do not find persuasive their reliance on Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal. 3d 39 [104 Cal. Rptr. 1, 500 P.2d 1345], for support for their contention.
Klopping involved a plaintiff's recovery for the decline in market value as the result of an unreasonable delay in the institution of eminent domain proceedings following announcement of intent to condemn, and other unreasonable conduct prior to condemnation. In the matter before us there was no such delay or conduct. Tiburon instituted eminent domain proceedings less than six months after Ordinance No. 124 N.S. was adopted. It is manifest that general land-use planning discussions and related decision-making by elected officials must be both unhampered and public. Together or singly, neither process constitutes a "taking" of the property under consideration. Any other conclusion would violate sound public policy.
Recognizing the constitutionally protected property interests here involved, we also accept the reasonable latitude which must be afforded public officials in the planning for and implementation of legitimate land use goals. These twin purposes will be served by preserving for the landowner, in appropriate cases, declaratory relief or mandamus remedies. However, the use of inverse condemnation with its imposition of money damages upon the public entity would, in our view, unwisely inhibit the proper and necessary exercise of a valid police power.
The majority opinion attempts to justify its judgment on the ground that plaintiffs -- if they are entitled to relief at all -- must look to some remedy other than inverse condemnation. (Ante, p. 272.) While purporting to recognize that the Fifth Amendment mandates "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation," that the "'constitutional provision is addressed to every sort of interest the citizen may possess'" (ante, p. 273), and that "we cannot countenance the service of [the need of government to improve the quality of life] through the uncompensated destruction of private property rights" (id.), the majority refuse to follow these precepts. Their refusal is grounded on their mistaken analysis of this court's earlier decision in HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 508 [125 Cal. Rptr. 365, 542 P.2d 237].
When a zoning restriction is so harsh as to transcend a constitutionally protected property right is a question of fact to be determined by trial rather than by demurrer. (See Wilkins v. City of San Bernardino (1946) 29 Cal. 2d 332, 338-339 [175 P.2d 542]; Eldridge v. City of Palo Alto, supra, 57 Cal. App. 3d 613, 628.) Plaintiffs have well pleaded a cause of action in inverse condemnation, and should be afforded an opportunity to prove their allegations.
The Supreme Court's latest expression of continuing adherence to the mandate of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is contained in Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979) ___ U.S. [59 L. Ed. 2d 401, 99 S. Ct. 1171]. In that case lands originally zoned as residential and commercial were rezoned by an interstate agency to allow limited residential use subordinated to public recreational use. Property owners' claimed that the land use ordinance constituted inverse condemnation. The district court held that a cause of action for inverse condemenation was sufficiently alleged but that the action could not be maintained against the interstate agency, and that individual members of the agency were immune from suit. The court of appeals held that the interstate agency was federal in character, that the agency was therefore immune under the Eleventh Amendment, and that individual members of the agency were also immune. The Supreme Court answered by holding a cause of action was properly alleged, and that the interstate agency was neither federal in character nor immune, although individual agency members were immune. While the court was primarily concerned with immunity issues, the sense of the holding is that an action in inverse condemnation lies for a taking brought about by land use regulation of the very nature involved in the instant case.
Particular areas of concern must be seen arising from today's decision. First, the, majority's solution is really a nonremedy for an aggrieved landowner. If he can protect his lands only through a proceeding to declare the invalidity of a land use regulation, he must lose interim use of his land -- most likely for a period of years -- suffering substantial legal costs, even though he may ultimately prevail. Moreover, there is nothing to prevent the governmental agency from reenacting a modified ordinance compelling a second or even third proceeding -- a burden exceeding bare possibility in view of the majority's invitation to oppressive land use limitation. Many landowners -- particularly small ones -- will be economically unable to challenge even a confiscatory enactment, being compelled to walk away from their properties.
Perhaps of greater concern is the consequence that Tiburon -- and many other govenmental agencies enacting similar land use plans -- will price properties within their control out of reach of most people. Only the most wealthy will be able to afford purchase of and construction on lands in such areas. The environment which Tiburon seeks to preserve will [24 Cal. 3d 284] disproportionately benefit that wealthy landowner, whose home will be surrounded by open space, unobstructed view and unpolluted atmosphere.
I reject the majority rationalization. It abdicates our responsibility to give meaning and substance to constitutional mandate.
Today's decision must further encourage city councils and their zoners to politically preserve entrenched property use. The decision not only shuts Mr. Agins out from our courtroom, but also his successor-owners from sharing a nice but exclusive environment.
The judgment of dismissal should be reversed.
FN 1. It is alleged by plaintiffs' complaint and admitted by the city's demurrer that the City of Tiburon has "the highest land value per acre for suburban areas in the State of California."
FN 3. The majority's holding unnecessarily goes far beyond a mere determination that -- in the majority's view -- plaintiffs in this case are entitled to no relief. In the concluding portions of the majority opinion it is stated -- although as earlier noted contrary to established rules on review of judgments following sustaining of demurrer -- that the Tiburon ordinance does not deprive plaintiffs of "substantially all reasonable use" of their property. (Ante, p. 277.) Thus HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, supra, 15 Cal. 3d 508, requires rejection of plaintiffs' claim because there has been a "mere diminution" of value as opposed to a taking of property, according to the majority. The majority's further assertion that inverse condemnation is no longer available to compensate an aggrieved landowner, appears to be -- after more than a century of settled law to the contrary -- obiter dicta. Such far-reaching pronouncement would be better left to another day and case wherein the issue is squarely presented and the parties have full opportunity to address it.

References: § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.