Court Opinion

ID: 9692590
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:58:05.115182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.496555
License: Public Domain

Riley, C.J.
Plaintiff-appellant applied to the City of Westland for permission to construct a manufacturing plant on its property. In exchange for site-plan approval and a subsequent building permit, the city council demanded the dedication of a strip of land adjacent to Newburgh Road for an unrelated road-widening project. Although the plaintiff repeatedly requested that the council remove the restriction, it did not appeal the council’s decision to a higher city authority. Nor did the plaintiff attempt to have the restriction lifted by way of a circuit court injunction or declaration.
At a council meeting on June 11, 1979, the council approved the plaintiff’s site plan subject to five stated conditions, one being the dedication of land. The plaintiff refused to give away its property and submitted no revised site plan. Thus, the *61proposed building was never erected. However, the City of Westland, through formal condemnation proceedings, eventually acquired the strip of land abutting Newburgh Road.
Later, the plaintiff brought an action against the city under 42 USC 1983, alleging that the city "took” its property without just compensation and without due process of law in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. We are asked, in this case, to determine whether this property owner is entitled to recover damages under 42 USC 1983 for the alleged taking caused by the "wrongful” denial of a building permit. Accordingly, we must first determine the procedural prerequisites for such an action and whether this plaintiff has met them.
We hold that before proceeding under 42 USC 1983, a property owner must first obtain a final decision from the particular governmental entity that is alleged to have unconstitutionally taken his property and also attempt to obtain just compensation through inverse condemnation. In the instant case, because the conditional approval of the plaintiff’s site plan was not the city’s final disposition of the matter, we hold that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was not ripe for adjudication. We need not reach, therefore, the question whether the council’s actions actually constituted a "taking” within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in permitting the plaintiff to proceed to trial on its § 1983 claim.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff-appellant, Electro-Tech, Inc., manufactures electrical and electronic products. Much of *62Electro-Tech’s business involves contracts with the United States military. The company’s manufacturing facility is located on Newburgh Road in the City of Westland.
Mr. Jack Beauchamp is the president and sole shareholder of Electro-Tech. In anticipation of securing additional contracts with the government and in order to more efficiently complete existing contracts, Mr. Beauchamp decided to build another manufacturing plant directly behind the existing facility. On October 26, 1978, Electro-Tech contracted with defendant, H. F. Campbell Company, to construct the new building. Pursuant to the agreement, Campbell was obligated to obtain a building permit and to complete construction by February 13,1979.
On or about March 3, 1979, Mr. Beauchamp approved Campbell’s site plan. However, before obtaining a building permit and actually beginning construction, Campbell was required to submit its plan for review by various city departments. The recommendations of these departments are then submitted to the planning commission for initial site-plan approval. The planning commission thereafter makes its recommendation to the city council for approval. After a site plan passes the council, the matter is finally submitted to the building department. The building department then examines the final site and building plans and, if approved, issues a building permit.1
On February 21, 1979, representatives of the various departments met to discuss Campbell’s proposed site plan. At that meeting, the representatives compiled a list of thirteen items which were required to be included in the site plan before submission to the planning commission and *63city council. This list was forwarded by letter to Mr. Richard Wagner, the project director for Campbell. Although not included in the list, a recommendation was apparently made at this meeting to require, in exchange for site-plan approval and a subsequent building permit, the dedication of a twenty-seven-foot strip along the front of Electro-Tech’s property for the widening of Newburgh Road.2 The instant lawsuit concerns this dedication requirement.
On March 22, 1979, Mr. Wagner received a letter stating that the planning commission would recommend that the city council approve the site plan contingent upon, among other things, ElectroTech’s dedication of the strip adjacent to New-burgh Road. At trial, Mr. Beauchamp testified that, during the spring of 1979, he attended four or five council meetings protesting the city’s demand.
Nonetheless, at a meeting on June 11, 1979, with Mr. Beauchamp in attendance, the city council approved the site plan, subject to five stated contingencies:
1) Loading area should be clearly designated as such by striping and signage.
2) A second access door in the new addition is required along the north side of the building for fire protection.
3) Fire and Engineering requirements must be met on final engineering and building plans.
4) Dedication of 27 feet wide, approximately 210 feet in front of K2da for future Newburgh Road right-of-way.
5) The front greenbelt area is to be graded and sodded. [Emphasis added.]_
*64Neither Campbell nor Electro-Tech attempted to appeal3 the decision of the city council or to take the matter directly to the building department. It is also established that Electro-Tech did not attempt to have the dedication condition removed by way of a circuit court injunction or declaration.
Soon after the meeting of June 11, however, Campbell began making revisions to the site plan to comply with the requests of the city council. Plaintiff claims that all of the contingencies except for the dedication were met. However, evidence adduced at trial suggests that Campbell never submitted a final site plan to the council or to the building department (which is ultimately responsible for issuing the building permit) and was, in fact, still revising through September of 1979.
Because of its failure to procure site-plan approval and a subsequent building permit, Campbell could not proceed with the construction of Electro-Tech’s new plant. Without the additional work space, Electro-Tech alleged it could not bid on several upcoming contracts and was forced to subcontract work on existing contracts in order to meet government deadlines.
On October 15, 1979, the City of Westland sent Electro-Tech a letter offering to purchase the strip of land abutting Newburgh Road. Mr. Beauchamp rejected the initial offer, maintaining that the proposed purchase price was too low. In January of 1980, the city filed a condemnation action in Wayne Circuit Court.4
On May 21, 1982, Electro-Tech brought this *65action against the City of Westland,5 alleging that the city’s "extortionary” demand and "wrongful” denial of the building permit violated both state and federal law. At the pretrial motions for summary disposition, the trial court dismissed ElectroTech’s state claims as being barred by governmental immunity.
On June 11, 1985, Electro-Tech proceeded to trial on its claim under 42 USC 1983. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Electro-Tech in the amount of $433,052. On July 9, 1985, the city moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied by order entered July 23, 1985.
The city appealed, raising four issues. Reaching only the first, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court erred in permitting Electro-Tech to proceed to trial under 42 USC 1983.6 Specifically, the Court of Appeals stated "that no violation of constitutional or federal law exists where plaintiff has merely been erroneously denied initial site approval and a building permit by a city council. Plaintiff must look for a review of that decision within the state.” 161 Mich App 622, 629; 411 NW2d 800 (1987).
On March 22, 1988, we granted leave to appeal limited to the issue whether the plaintiff’s judgment under 42 USC 1983 should be reinstated.7
II. DISCUSSION
Section 19838 provides a civil remedy to persons *66deprived of constitutional rights by individuals acting under color of state law. In Parratt v Taylor, 451 US 527; 101 S Ct 1908; 68 L Ed 2d 420 (1981), a state prison inmate lost a mail-order hobby kit, valued at $23.50, when a prison official negligently handled the prison mail. The inmate brought a § 1983 action, claiming a deprivation of his property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.9 In deciding the fate of the respondent’s claim, the United States Supreme Court stated:
[I]n any § 1983 action the initial inquiry must focus on whether the two essential elements to a § 1983 action are present: (1) whether the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) whether this *67conduct deprived a person of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. [451 US at 535. See also Collier v City of Springdale, 733 F2d 1311, 1313 (CA 8, 1984), cert den 469 US 857 (1984).]
As in Parratt, the Westland City Council here was undoubtedly acting in its official capacity and, therefore, "under color of state law.” Our analysis, therefore, focuses, as it did in Parratt, on whether the plaintiff has been denied a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the United States Constitution.10
In its fourth amended complaint, upon which this case was tried, Electro-Tech alleged that the city council’s refusal to approve its site plan and building permit violated its rights to just compensation11 and due process12 under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court of Appeals ruled that Electro-Tech could not maintain an action under § 1983, concluding that no constitutional violation exists "where plaintiff has merely been erroneously denied initial site approval and a *68building permit by a city council. Plaintiff must look for a review of that decision within the state. It is a review of the city’s decision and not tort remedies which we point out to plaintiff.” 161 Mich App 629.
While we are in agreement with the result reached by the Court of Appeals, we believe that its analysis is flawed by the blurring of what we believe should be three distinct inquiries: the existence of a constitutional violation, exhaustion of state administrative remedies, and ripeness. The issue whether Electro-Tech was actually deprived of its property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is distinct from the issues whether Electro-Tech was required to exhaust state administrative remedies before proceeding under § 1983 and whether the city’s decision regarding Electro-Tech’s property was final and, thus, judicially reviewable. We will, therefore, treat these inquiries separately.
A. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION
1. REGULATORY TAKING
According to the Supreme Court of the United States, a taking may occur where a governmental entity exercises its power of eminent domain through formal condemnation proceedings, see, e.g., Berman v Parker, 348 US 26; 75 S Ct 98; 99 L Ed 27 (1954) (Fifth Amendment taking), or where a governmental entity exercises its police power through regulation which restricts the use of property, see Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon, 260 US 393, 415; 43 S Ct 158; 67 L Ed 322 (1922) (this claim may be framed as a Fifth Amendment taking or as a Fourteenth Amendment "due process” type taking). It is well established that land use regulation does not effect a taking if it "substan*69tially advance[s] legitimate state interests” and does not "den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land.”13 Agins v Tiburon, 447 US 255, 260; 100 S Ct 2138; 65 L Ed 2d 106 (1980). See also Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v DeBenedictis, 480 US 470; 107 S Ct 1232; 94 L Ed 2d 472 (1987); Penn Central Transportation Co v New York City, 438 US 104; 98 S Ct 2646; 57 L Ed 2d 631 (1978). Regulation that "goes too far . . . will be recognized as a taking.” Pennsylvania Coal, supra, p 415.
The plaintiff in the instant case relies on two recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court to support its contention that the actions of the Westland City Council constituted a "taking” of property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v Los Angeles Co, 482 US 304; 107 S Ct 2378; 96 L Ed 2d 250 (1987), the Court held that where a land-use regulation effects a "taking” of all use of property, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires payment to the property owner even where the intrusion was only temporary.
The plaintiff, in First English, owned and operated a campground for handicapped children. In 1978, when a flood destroyed the facility and much of the surrounding area, Los Angeles County passed an interim ordinance prohibiting any reconstruction in the flood area. The church then brought an inverse condemnation suit in state court, claiming that the ordinance denied the plaintiff of all use of its property. _
*70The county moved successfully to strike the claim on the ground that the only relief available was a declaration that the ordinance was invalid or a writ of mandamus specifically permitting the proposed use of the land. Agins v Tiburon, 24 Cal 3d 266; 157 Cal Rptr 372; 598 P2d 25 (1979), aff'd on other grounds 447 US 255; 100 S Ct 2138; 65 L Ed 2d 106 (1980). The Supreme Court, however, recognizing the inherent unfairness of applying the Agins rule to the church’s cause of action, held that "where the government’s activities have already worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective.” First English, supra, p 321.14
Electro-Tech contends that First English is analogous to the instant case because the city council’s imposition of the improper dedication requirement resulted in its temporary failure to obtain a building permit. Thus, like Los Angeles County’s flood ordinance, Electro-Tech argues that the council’s condition here "worked a taking of all use of [the plaintiff’s] property” and that no "subsequent action” by the City of Westland, not even the eventual condemnation of the twenty-seven-foot parcel, "can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation *71for the period during which the taking was effective.” Id.
Recognizing the similarities between First English and the instant case, it should be noted that the First English Court expressly declined to address "the quite different questions that would arise in the case of normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, variances, and the like . . . .” Id., p 321.
Two weeks after First English was decided, the Court decided Nollan v California Coastal Comm, 483 US 825; 107 S Ct 3141; 97 L Ed 2d 677 (1987), a case factually similar to the one before us today. In Nollan, the coastal commission issued the plaintiffs a permit to rebuild their beach house upon the condition that they allow the public an easement across their beach. The plaintiffs sued the commission in state court bn the ground that the condition constituted a taking.15 The Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that the commission’s imposition of the easement condition was not a valid land-use regulation since it did not serve public purposes related to the permit requirement. For example, although the state is authorized to pursue its comprehensive public-access program by exercising its eminent domain power and paying for such easements, it cannot compel coastal residents to give away their property in furtherance of that goal. In other words, "if [California] wants an easement across the [plaintiffs’] property, it must pay for it.” Id., p 842.
In Electro-Tech’s view, Nollan is also dispositive of the constitutional issue before this Court today. According to the plaintiff, the dedication condition *72here, like the easement condition in Nollan, does not serve any public purpose related to the building permit requirement. Electro-Tech’s plans to expand its manufacturing facility are in no way related to the city’s plans to widen Newburgh Road. Thus, although Westland is authorized to pursue the goals set forth in its master plan, i.e., the expansion of Newburgh Road, it cannot, within the confines of the Fifth Amendment, compel nearby landowners to give away their property in realization of that goal.
On the basis of First English and Nollan, Electro-Tech argues that the City of Westland "took” its property in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, Electro-Tech contends that it has properly asserted a claim for damages against the city under § 1983.16 The city, on the other hand, argues that there was no "taking” because it did in fact condemn and pay Electro-Tech for the twenty-seven-foot strip of land adjacent to Newburgh Road._
*73Having reviewed the record in this case, we find that the "taking” involved in the § 1983 action is different than the "taking” involved in the city’s condemnation action. The subject of the § 1983 suit is the property upon which Electro-Tech intended to build, while the subject of the condemnation suit was the twenty-seven-foot parcel abutting Newburgh Road.
We agree, on the basis of Nollan, that had the city actually enforced the dedication requirement, a "permanent physical occupation” of ElectroTech’s land (i.e., the twenty-seven-foot parcel) would have resulted.17 We note, however, that the city eventually paid Electro-Tech for this parcel'of land. Similarly, in Nollan, a permanent physical invasion of the plaintiff’s property (i.e., the land upon which the public easement was to be placed) did not occur because the commission’s threatened action never came about. The Nollan Court simply held that the easement condition did not advance any legitimate state interest. Id., p 841.18_
*74We acknowledge the obvious similarities between Nollan and the instant case.19 Nollan, however, is procedurally distinguishable from the instant case because ripeness (finality) was never an issue there. Unlike the city council in the instant case, the commission in Nollan apparently placed only one condition, albeit improper,20 on the issu*75anee of the building permit. Thus, the plaintiffs there had no further steps to go through before coming to court to contest the improper condition. In the instant case, the council had imposed, in addition to the improper dedication requirement, four "valid” conditions on the issuance of the permit. Because Electro-Tech failed to remedy these valid requirements or to submit a revised site plan evidencing compliance therewith, it was unclear whether or how much the improper condition interfered with the owner’s investment-backed expectations. Electro-Tech’s claim, therefore, was not ripe for review. See discussion of Williamson Co Regional Planning Comm v Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 US 172; 105 S Ct 3108; 87 L Ed 2d 126 (1985), in section n(c).
Because we conclude in section n(c), that the City of Westland had not made a final determination regarding the disposition of Electro-Tech’s property, we need not decide at this time whether Electro-Tech has established an unconstitutional taking.
2. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Justice Brickley asserts that a property owner like Electro-Tech may "advance a [substantive] due process claim separate and distinct from the regulatory taking due process claim” discussed in this opinion. Post, p 94. Justice Brickley contends that Electro-Tech has, in the instant case, established "arbitrary] and capricious[ ]” action on the part of the city council in imposing the dedication condition in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., p 92.
In support of these assertions, Justice Brickley relies on Nollan, supra, and Daniels v Williams, 474 US 327, 337; 106 S Ct 662; 88 L Ed 2d 662 *76(1986). In our view, Justice Brickley mistakenly relies upon Daniels to support the alleged constitutional violation in the instant case. In Daniels, the plaintiff, a state prison inmate, claimed that he was deprived of due process when he slipped and fell on a pillow left on the jail stairs by a prison guard. The Court held that the Due Process Clause is not implicated by a state official’s negligent act causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property. Id., p 328.
Unlike Daniels, the instant case involves a land use restriction. We recognize that at least two federal circuits have employed substantive due process in analyzing similar land use restrictions. See, e.g., Bateson v Geisse, 857 F2d 1300 (CA 9, 1988); Bello v Walker, 840 F2d 1124 (CA 3, 1988), cert den 488 US 868; 109 S Ct 176; 102 L Ed 2d 145 (1988). But see Chiplin Enterprises, Inc v City of Lebanon, 712 F2d 1524 (CA 1, 1983). We find it significant, however, that the Supreme Court has yet to employ such an approach in cases involving the wrongful denial of a land use permit. In Nollan, for example, the Supreme Court not only applied a traditional regulatory taking analysis, but it repeatedly referred to the case as one involving a taking.21
We are not suggesting, however, that ElectroTech was foreclosed from asserting a substantive due process claim in the instant case. In fact, we *77agree with Justice Brickley that both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have acknowledged the possibility of substantive due process claims in response to governmental regulation of property. See, e.g., Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty Co, 272 US 365; 47 S Ct 114; 71 L Ed 303 (1926); Goldblatt v Town of Hempstead, 369 US 590; 82 S Ct 987; 8 L Ed 2d 130 (1962); Kropf v Sterling Heights, 391 Mich 139; 215 NW2d 179 (1974); Cryderman v City of Birmingham, 171 Mich App 15; 429 NW2d 625 (1988). Our review of the record here, however, indicates that this case was tried as a regulatory taking due process claim.
In part i of his opinion, Justice Brickley himself acknowledges that a property owner may properly assert that a land use restriction " 'goes so far that it has the same effect as a taking by eminent domain [and] is an invalid exercise of the police power, violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ ” Post, pp 93-94 citing Williamson. It is apparent in the instant case that Electro-Tech has asserted such a taking claim from the start. See plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint and brief on appeal in this Court.
Furthermore, the plaintiff here clearly tried its case on a regulatory taking due process theory. The record reveals that the trial court instructed the jury on the "deprivation of property without due process of law.” There was no instruction relating to substantive due process or to the "arbitrary” or "unreasonable” nature of the council’s dedication requirement.22_
*79As explained by Justice Brickley, "[r]egardless of the manner in which a 'regulatory taking’ claim is framed, whether as a violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment or of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the claim does not ripen until the landowner has received a final decision regarding the application of the regulation or ordinance to the particular piece of property. Williamson, supra; MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v Yolo Co, 477 US 340; 106 S Ct 2561; 91 L Ed 2d 285 (1986).” (Post, p 94.) Because the City of Westland did not have the opportunity to make a final decision regarding Electro-Tech’s property, see section ii(c), we hold that its claim was not ripe for judicial review.
B
EXHAUSTION OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
In Patsy v Florida Bd of Regents, 457 US 496, 550; 102 S Ct 2557; 73 L Ed 2d 172 (1982), the Supreme Court unequivocally stated that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action under 42 USC 1983.23 The plaintiff in Patsy filed a § 1983 action *80in federal district court, alleging that her employer intentionally denied her employment opportunities solely on the basis of her race and sex. The employer successfully moved to dismiss because the plaintiff had not exhausted available administrative remedies. However, the Supreme Court, examining the legislative history of 42 USC 1983 and noting "the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights,” decided not to overrule its prior decisions that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a § 1983 action.24
Although Patsy unequivocally establishes that Electro-Tech was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies before bringing its § 1983 claim, other Supreme Court and lower federal court cases dealing specifically with regulatory taking have focused on the importance of obtaining a final decision from the governmental entity that is alleged to have acted unconstitutionally.
c
FINALITY
In Williamson Co Regional Planning Comm v Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, supra, 192-193, the Supreme Court stated:
The question whether administrative remedies must be exhausted is conceptually *81distinct . . . from the question whether an administrative action must be final before it is judicially reviewable. While the policies underlying the two concepts often overlap, the finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a deñnitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]
In Williamson, the plaintiff bank brought a § 1983 action against the county. The plaintiff claimed, as Electro-Tech does in this case, that the local government’s temporary refusal to allow development of its property constituted a compensable taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, did not reach the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional claim because it found the action unripe.
The Williamson Court set forth two finality requirements which must be satisfied before a plaintiff may bring an action under § 1983 for damages resulting from an unconstitutional regulatory taking. First, the Court required that the plaintiff obtain a ñnal decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations to its property. Id., p 186, citing Hodel v Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n, Inc, 452 US 264; 101 S Ct 2352; 69 L Ed 2d 1 (1981).
According to Williamson, requiring a final decision from the appropriate administrative body prior to initiating a § 1983 action "is compelled by the very nature of the inquiry required by the Just Compensation Clause.” Williamson, supra, p 190.
*82Although "[t]he question of what constitutes a 'taking’ for purposes of the Fifth Amendment has proved to be a problem of considerable difficulty,” Penn Central Transp Co v New York City, 438 US 104, 123 [98 S Ct 2646; 57 L Ed 2d 631 (1978)], this Court consistently has indicated that among the factors of particular significance in the inquiry are the economic impact of the challenged action and the extent to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Those factors simply cannot be evaluated until the administrative agency has arrived at a final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the regulations at issue to the particular land in question. [Id., pp 190-191. Citations omitted.][25]
In light of Patsy, the Williamson Court reasoned that although the plaintiff would not be required to appeal the planning commission’s decision to the zoning board of appeals,26 it would be required to seek variances which "would result in a conclusive determination by the Commission whether it would allow [the plaintiff] to develop the subdivision in the manner [originally] proposed.” Id., p 193 (emphasis added).
Applying these principles to the instant case,27 *83we would hold that although Electro-Tech was not required to appeal the council’s initial site-plan decision to the zoning board of appeals, the plaintiff was required to obtain a final decision from the city before bringing an action under 42 USC 1983.28 In light of the circumstances surrounding *84the "conditional approval” of Electro-Tech’s site plan, we are persuaded that the plaintiff had not yet completed the available procedures which might have enabled it to build according to the plans it had originally submitted for approval.
At the June 11, 1979, city council meeting, the council had imposed, in addition to the dedication requirement, four conditions for obtaining final site-plan approval and a subsequent building permit.29 Electro-Tech admits that none of the four additional conditions were objectionable, and, although it proceeded to remedy the deficiencies, it failed to submit a final site plan (either to the council or to the building department) reflecting at least those changes.30
The record further indicates that although all of the city departments participate in the decision-making process, the ultimate decision regarding building requests lies with the building department. As stated previously, the building department is responsible for examining the final site and building plans (as well as the final report from the engineering department) and, if everything is *85approved, for ultimately issuing the building permit.31
These facts, in our view, support the conclusion that the process for obtaining the city’s permission to build had not yet been completed. The fact that the council’s approval was "conditional” indicates that the entire matter had not yet been finally resolved and that Electro-Tech would have to submit an amended site plan before it could begin building. As indicated in Williamson, until all five of the council’s objections, including the four "valid” conditions, are addressed and finally resolved (either by compliance or by refusal to comply), it is impossible to accurately determine the extent to which the plaintiff’s land retained any reasonable beneficial use or the extent to which the plaintiff’s expectation interest had been destroyed32_
*86We agree with Justice Brickley that the building department has no authority "to override a condition imposed by the city council.” Post, p 107. However, this fact does not obviate the need for obtaining a final decision from the city in this case. The fact that the building department cannot overrule the city council does not, as Justice Brickley suggests, reduce the Williamson finality requirement to a mere exercise in futility.33
The Supreme Court’s primary purpose in mandating a final decision from the appropriate administrative body was to establish the existence of a "taking” and the extent to which it has harmed the plaintiff. Thus, while a final decision by the *87building department in the instant case probably would not have resulted in approval of the site plan or the issuance of a building permit, it would have indeed resolved any issue regarding the four "valid” conditions and would have established a basis upon which a factfinder could conclude that "but for” the improper dedication requirement, Electro-Tech would have been able to "derive economic benefit” from its land. Williamson, supra at 191.34
In light of the record in the instant case as well as the purpose underlying the Williamson finality requirement, we reject the plaintiff’s assertion that it would have been futile to submit an amended site plan to the building department.
The second finality requirement set forth by the Williamson Court is that a taking claim is not ripe until a plaintiff has sought compensation through state procedures. The Court reasoned:
The Fifth Amendment does not proscribe the taking of property; it proscribes taking without just compensation. Nor does the Fifth Amendment require that just compensation be paid in advance of, or contemporaneously with, the taking; all that is required is that a " 'reasonable, certain and adequate provision for obtaining compensation’ ” exist at the time of the taking. . . . Similarly, if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation. [Id., pp 194-195. Citations omitted; emphasis added.]_
*88The Supreme Court reaffirmed its finality requirements in MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v Yolo Co, supra. Similarly, the lower federal courts have followed suit in requiring that a plaintiff first obtain a final decision from the governmental entity that is alleged to have taken property without just compensation and utilize the state procedures for obtaining just compensation before the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim will be considered ripe for adjudication. Bateson, supra; A A Profiles Inc v City of Ft Lauderdale, 850 F2d 1483 (CA 11, 1988); Austin v City & Co of Honolulu, 840 F2d 678 (CA 9, 1988), cert den 488 US 852; 109 S Ct 136; 102 L Ed 2d 109 (1988); Kinzli v City of Santa Cruz, 818 F2d 1449, 1453-1455 (CA 9, 1987), cert den 484 US 1043; 108 S Ct 775; 98 L Ed 2d 861 (1988); Ochoa Realty Corp v Faria, 815 F2d 812, 816-817 (CA 1, 1987); Norco Construction Inc v King Co, 801 F2d 1143, 1145-1146 (CA 9, 1986); Anthony v Franklin Co, 799 F2d 681, 683-684 (CA 11, 1986); Union Pacific R Co v Idaho, 654 F Supp 1236, 1243-1244 (D Idaho, 1987); Kaiser Development Co v City & Co of Honolulu, 649 F Supp 926, 938-943 (D Hawaii, 1986); Ross v City of Berkeley, 655 F Supp 820, 840-842 (ND Cal, 1987); JBK, Inc v Kansas City, 641 F Supp 893, 908-909 (WD Mo, 1986).
Like the State of Tennessee in Williamson, the State of Michigan recognizes a cause of action for a de facto taking. Const 1963, art 10, § 2; Hart v Detroit, 416 Mich 488; 331 NW2d 438 (1982); In re Urban Renewal, Elmwood Park Project, 376 Mich 311; 136 NW2d 896 (1965); Foster v Detroit, 405 F2d 138 (CA 6, 1968); In re Acquisition of Virginia Park, 121 Mich App 153; 328 NW2d 602 (1982); Detroit Bd of Ed v Clarke, 89 Mich App 504; 280 NW2d 574 (1979).35 An inverse or reverse condem*89nation suit is one instituted by a landowner whose property has been taken for public use "without the commencement of condemnation proceedings.” Hart, supra, p 494. Under Michigan law, a "taking” for purposes of inverse condemnation means that governmental action has permanently deprived the property owner of any possession or use of the property. Id., pp 501-502. When such a taking has occurred, the Michigan Constitution entitles the property owner to just compensation for the value of the property taken. Id., p 494.
Further, Michigan law also recognizes a cause of action for inverse condemnation in cases, like this one, without a physical taking of property, where it is alleged that the effect of a governmental regulation is "to prevent the use of much of plaintiff’s property ... for any profitable purpose.” Grand Trunk W R Co v Detroit, 326 Mich 387, 392-393; 40 NW2d 195 (1949). For example, in Spanich v Livonia, 355 Mich 252, 259-265; 94 NW2d 62 (1959), this Court acknowledged that the application of a zoning ordinance to a particular property can constitute an unconstitutional taking.
Generally, the remedy in such cases is a declaration that the regulation is unconstitutional and void. Schwartz v City of Flint, 426 Mich 295, 308; 395 NW2d 678 (1986); Delta Charter Twp v Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 268-269; 351 NW2d 831 (1984). Assuming, however, that the plaintiff shows by a preponderance of the evidence that a proposed specific use of the property is reasonable, the trial court may additionally declare the use to be reasonable and enjoin the municipality from interfering with that use. Schwartz, supra, pp 325-329. *90Although we found the notion "appealing,” Schwartz, supra, p 324, this Court has yet to decide whether plaintiffs may also be compensated for temporary regulatory takings. Recently, however, in Poirier v Grand Blanc Twp, 167 Mich App 770, 774; 423 NW2d 351 (1988), the Court of Appeals adhered to the holding of the United States Supreme Court in First English, supra, stating:
[It is well established] that regulation that goes too far will be recognized as a taking. Where government action works a taking, that necessarily implies the constitutional obligation to pay just compensation. That the regulation was an interim one or could be invalidated did not preclude an award for damages. The Court held that " 'temporary’ takings . . . are not different in kind from permanent takings, for which the Constitution clearly requires compensation.” Where government activities effect a taking, the mere invalidation of the offending ordinance does not relieve the government of its duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective. The Court did not distinguish between takings accomplished by the use of police power or by eminent domain. The key consideration was whether there had been a taking. [Citations omitted and emphasis added.][36]
Having examined the entire record in this case, we are persuaded that Electro-Tech attempted to pursue an inverse condemnation action in state court37 and that the trial court improperly disposed *91of this claim on governmental immunity grounds.38
In light of both finality requirements set forth in Williamson, however, we find that the plaintiff here has, at the most, satisfied only the second requirement. The fact that Electro-Tech was not permitted to pursue its inverse condemnation action does not obviate the fact that the plaintiff had not yet obtained a final decision from the City of Westland regarding its request to build. Accordingly, we hold that Electro-Tech has brought its § 1983 "taking” claim prematurely.
hi
In light of Williamson and its progeny*, we are persuaded that Congress did not intend 42 USC 1983 to be an immediate tort recovery act for every person adversely affected by a local agency’s initial zoning or building decision. In the instant case, because the conditional approval of the plaintiff’s site plan was not the city’s final disposition of the matter, we hold that the plaintiff’s action under 42 USC 1983 was not ripe for adjudication. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals._
*92Boyle, Archer, and Griffin, JJ., concurred with Riley, C.J.

 These procedures were verified at trial through the testimony of various city employees.

 According to the trial testimony, the dedication request was made in furtherance of the goals stated in the city’s master plan. The plan, adopted in April of 1968, was still in effect at the time of trial.

 Mr. Beauchamp, however, testified that he had heard of the zoning board of appeals.

 On November 18, 1983, the court entered a consent judgment for the condemnation of the twenty-seven-foot parcel, awarding ElectroTech $45,824.88, or four times the sum originally offered.

 The plaintiff also sued Campbell for breach of contract. This matter was settled prior to trial.

 Electro-Tech, Inc v H F Campbell Co, 161 Mich App 622; 411 NW2d 800 (1987).

 430 Mich 858 (1988).

 Originally passed in 1871, the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 1983 provides:
*66Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embodies a dual function. Not only does it afford procedural safeguards to protected life, liberty, and property interests, but it also protects substantive aspects of those interests against impermissible governmental restrictions. Hannah v Larche, 363 US 420; 80 S Ct 1502; 4 L Ed 2d 1307 (1960), reh den 364 US 855 (1960) (procedural due process requires that a person who is allegedly being deprived of protected rights be given notice of the proceedings against him, an opportunity to defend himself, as well as the assurance that the matter will be conducted in a fair manner); West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish, 300 US 379; 57 S Ct 578; 81 L Ed 703 (1937) (substantive due process is the constitutional guarantee that state legislation will not work to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property for arbitrary reasons). See also 16A Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 403, 812-818, pp 124-128, 967-996.
In Parratt, the plaintiff claimed that the conduct of the prison guard violated his right to procedural due process.

 In Parratt, the Court found that the inmate’s deprivation did not violate the Due Process Clause. The deprivation did not result from an established state procedure; rather, it resulted from "a random and unauthorized act” of a state employee. 451 US 541. Accordingly, because it would be impossible to predict when such random deprivations would occur, the state could hardly be expected to provide a predeprivation hearing. The Court also found significant the fact that, although Nebraska provides a tort remedy for persons suffering damages at the hands of the state, the plaintiff failed to avail himself of that procedure. Thus, the Court concluded that he failed to state a claim for relief under § 1983.

 The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, inter alia, that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use without just compensation.” This prohibition has been incorporated to apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Chicago, B & Q R Co v Chicago, 166 US 226; 17 S Ct 581; 41 L Ed 979 (1897).

 The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no "State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” For a discussion of the dual nature of the Due Process Clause, see n 9.

 It is also well established, however, that where governmental regulation results in a "permanent physical occupation” of property, a taking will be found "without regard to whether the action achieves an important public heneñt or has only minimal economic impact on the owner.” Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp, 458 US 419, 432, 434-435; 102 S Ct 3164; 73 L Ed 2d 868 (1982) (emphasis added).

 The principle espoused by the Court in First English evolved from several prior cases holding that when the intentional acts of government destroy the use of private property and its entire value to the owner, the government has "taken” property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Kaiser Aetna v United States, 444 US 164; 100 S Ct 383; 62 L Ed 2d 332 (1979) (the government’s attempt to create a public access to a privately owned pond amounted to a taking requiring just compensation); United States v Dickinson, 331 US 745; 67 S Ct 1382; 91 L Ed 1789 (1947) (the government’s purposeful flooding of the plaintiff’s land absent formal condemnation constituted a taking requiring just compensation); United States v Causby, 328 US 256; 66 S Ct 1062; 90 L Ed 1206 (1946) (the military use of an airport over the plaintiff’s chicken farm imposed a servitude upon the land for which compensation was required).

 The Nollans filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the superior court, arguing that imposition of the access condition violated the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., pp 828-829.

 It is significant that neither First English nor Nollan is a § 1983 case. Thus, neither case addressed the prerequisites for bringing such an action against a municipality. For example, in Monell v Dep’t of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 US 658; 98 S Ct 2018; 56 L Ed 2d 611 (1978), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress intended to include
municipalities and other local government units . . . among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. [Id. at 690. Emphasis added.]
Applying Monell to the instant case, it appears that Electro-Tech could have sued the City of Westland for "implementation or execution” of an unconstitutional regulation, though perhaps not for mere enactment of such a regulation. Here the city council’s resolution, even if final as Justice Brickley asserts, was never implemented or executed because the plaintiff never came back and satisfied the four valid requirements. See section n(c).

 See id., p 832 (discussion of the Loretto rule with respect to the easement condition: "We think a 'permanent physical occupation’ has occurred, for purposes of that rule, where individuals are given a permanent and continuous right to pass to and fro . . .”).

 The Supreme Court stated:
[O]ur cases describe the condition for abridgement of property rights through the police power as a "substantial advancing]” of a legitimate State interest. We are inclined to be particularly careful about the adjective where the actual conveyance of property is made a condition to the lifting of a land use restriction, since in that context there is heightened risk that the purpose is avoidance of the compensation requirement, rather than the stated police power objective.
We are left, then, with the Commission’s justification for the access requirement ....
"The access required as a condition of this permit is part of a comprehensive program to provide continuous public access along Faria Beach as the lots undergo development or redevelopment.”
That is simply an expression of the Commission’s belief that *74the public interest will be served by a continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast. The Commission may well be right that it is a good idea, but that does not establish that the Nollans (and other coastal residents) alone can be compelled to contribute to its realization. Rather, California is free to advance its "comprehensive program,” if it wishes, by using its power of eminent domain for this "public purpose,” but if it wants an easement across the Nollans’ property, it •must pay for it. [Id., pp 841-842. Citations omitted.]

 We also acknowledge the similarities between the instant case and First English. We point out, however, that although the Supreme Court in First English extended the regulatory taking doctrine to encompass actions seeking damages for a temporary taking, the Court expressly stated that a temporary taking is not different in kind from a permanent taking in that a landowner must be denied all use of his property. First English, supra, pp 318-320. In the instant case, although Electro-Tech was temporarily deprived of the opportunity to expand its manufacturing facility, it appears that the plaintiff still had an economically viable use for the property in its present condition.

 The Nollan Court stated that "unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an 'out-and-out plan of extortion.’ ” Nollan, supra, p 837 citing JED Associates, Inc v Atkinson, 121 NH 581, 584; 432 A2d 12 (1981), overruled on other grounds sub nom Town of Auburn v McEvoy, 131 NH 383; 553 A2d 317 (1988).
In JED Associates, the New Hampshire Supreme Court examined a zoning regulation which required all developers to dedicate a certain percentage of its land for playgrounds or other town uses as a condition to subdivision approval. The court found the regulation to be unconstitutional because it required developers "to pay for the privilege of using their land for valid and reasonable purposes even though it satisñes all other requirements of the town’s zoning and subdivision regulations.’’ Id., p 584 (emphasis added).
JED Associates is distinguishable from the instant case. Unlike Electro-Tech, the developer in JED Associates had complied with all of the "reasonable” city requirements. JED Associates, supra, p 585. In the instant case, Electro-Tech did not remedy the four "valid” requirements, nor did it submit a final site or building plan. In our view, this matter was not finally resolved by the City of Westland.

 In addition to "taking” claims, however, the Supreme Court has considered due process and equal protection challenges to governmental regulation of property. Despite the fact that the regulatory taking doctrine (regulation must "substantially advance legitimate state interests,” Pennsylvania Coal, supra), and the substantive due process test (regulation must be "reasonably necessary” to serve legitimate state interest, Goldblatt v Town of Hempstead, 369 US 590, 595; 82 S Ct 987; 8 L Ed 2d 130 [1962]) seem almost analytically identical, the Court maintains that its "verbal formulations in the takings [sic] field have generally been quite different” from the standards applied to due process claims. Id., p 848, n 3.

 Justice Brickley strains to explain why "[Electro-Tech] is a [substantive] due process case [and] Nollan was not.” See post, p 126. We find it anomalous, therefore, that Justice Brickley should rely on Nollan to support his conclusion that Electro-Tech’s substantive due process rights were violated:
Nollan compels the conclusion that Electro-Tech’s right to *78improve its property subject to legitimate permitting requirements was violated by the city’s admittedly illegitimate imposition of the dedication condition. The dispute between the parties whether Electro-Tech actually complied with the four remaining contingencies need not be resolved in light of Nollan. [Post, pp 116-117.]
Justice Brickley’s substantive due process analysis is fatally flawed because it fails to establish the existence of a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest. According to Justice Brickley, Nollan eliminates the need to establish whether Electro-Tech’s "interest should be treated as a property or liberty interest enjoyed ... as an incident of its ownership of the property, or as a government privilege or benefit which did not rise to the level of a constitutionally protected interest until such time as Electro-Tech’s 'unilateral expectation’ of receiving the permit became a 'legitimate claim of entitlement’ to it.” Post, p 116, quoting Bd of Regents v Roth, 408 US 564, 577; 92 S Ct 2701; 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972).
Justice Brickley correctly quotes the Nollan Court as stating that "the right to build on one’s own property — even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements — cannot remotely be described as a 'governmental benefit.’ ” Id., p 833, n 2. However, Justice Brickley overlooks the fact that this statement was not discussed in the context of substantive due process.
Nollan is a taking case. The Court made the above statement in response to an argument, based on Ruckelshaus v Monsanto Co, 467 US 986; 104 S Ct 2862; 81 L Ed 2d 815 (1984), that because the Nollans were on notice that the granting of a building permit would be conditioned on the granting of the easement, they had no reasonable " 'expectation of being able to exclude members of the public’ from walking across their beach.” Nollan, supra, p 833, n 2.
In Monsanto, which is also a taking case, the Court held that the granting of an insecticide registration is a “valuable Government benefit” which licenses the government to use and disclose trade secrets in the registration application. The Nollan Court distinguished Monsanto, stating simply that "the [commission’s] announcement that the application for (or granting of) the [building] permit will entail the yielding of a property interest cannot be regarded as . . . the voluntary 'exchange’ . . . that we found to have occurred in Monsanto. ” Id., p 833, n 2.
Justice Brickley interprets footnote 2 of Nollan too broadly. He would have us believe that Nollan, a taking case, renders the Roth substantive due process “government benefit/entitlement” test unnecessary in the land use area. Unlike Justice Brickley, we are not "puzzl[ed]” that the post -Nollan due process cases (e.g., RRI Realty Corp v Village of Southampton, 870 F2d 911 [CA 2, 1989]) do not mention Nollan. Post, p 118. Nollan is a taking case.
Furthermore, even assuming the instant case was, as Justice Brickley asserts, tried on a substantive due process theory and that Nollan applies in this context, we would still find Electro-Tech’s claim premature for want of a final decision. Herrington v Sonoma Co, 834 *79F2d 1488 (CA 9, 1988). The Nollan Court stated that a person has a right to build on its land subject to “legitimate permitting requirements." The Court did not state that a person has an automatic right to or indisputable property interest in a building permit.
In Nollan, the plaintiffs were entitled to build on their land because they apparently had satisfied all the legitimate permitting requirements. There was only one condition imposed there and that condition was improper. Here, there were four valid conditions imposed which were never satisfied. Thus, Electro-Tech did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the building permit and, therefore, has not demonstrated a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest.

 It is also well established that a plaintiff need not exhaust state judicial remedies before proceeding to federal court with a § 1983 action. Monroe v Pape, 365 US 167, 183; 81 S Ct 473; 5 L Ed 2d 492 (1961), overruled on other grounds in Monell, supra.

 See McNeese v Cahokia, Illinois Bd of Ed, 373 US 668, 671-673; 83 S Ct 1433; 10 L Ed 2d 622 (1963); Barry v Barchi, 443 US 55, 63, n 10; 99 S Ct 2642; 61 L Ed 2d 365 (1979); Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564, 574; 93 S Ct 1689; 36 L Ed 2d 488 (1973); Carter v Stanton, 405 US 669, 671; 92 S Ct 1232; 31 L Ed 2d 569 (1972); Wilwording v Swenson, 404 US 249, 251; 92 S Ct 407; 30 L Ed 2d 418 (1971); Houghton v Shafer, 392 US 639, 640; 88 S Ct 2119; 20 L Ed 2d 1319 (1968); King v Smith, 392 US 309, 312, n 4; 88 S Ct 2128; 20 L Ed 2d 1118 (1968); Damico v California, 389 US 416; 88 S Ct 526; 19 L Ed 2d 647 (1967).

 In Williamson, the city planning commission had voiced eight objections when it initially rejected the plaintiff’s preliminary plat. Because the plaintiff had failed to seek variances for each of the objections, the Court found its § 1983 claim unripe. "[U]ntil the Commission determines that no variances will be granted, it is impossible for the jury to find, on this record, whether [plaintiff] 'will be able to derive economic benefit’ from the land.” Id. at 191. In other words, "[a]bsent a final decision regarding the application of all eight of the commission’s objections, it is impossible to tell whether the land retained any reasonable beneficial use or whether [plaintiff’s] expectation interests had been destroyed.” Id., p 190, n 11.

 [Respondent would not be required to appeal the Commission’s rejection of the preliminary plat to the Board of Zoning Appeals, because the Board was empowered, at most, to review that rejection, not to participate in the Commission’s decision-making. [Id., p 193.]

 Justice Brickley criticizes the majority for applying the William*83son finality requirements in the instant case. According to Justice Brickley, "the finality requirement must be applied only when a landowner’s claim alleges that a regulatory taking of the property has occurred.” Post, pp 100-101. Justice Brickley asserts that ElectroTech has alleged a substantive due process claim rather than a regulatory taking claim and that Williamson, therefore, is inapplicable. Post, p 102.
We disagree with Justice Brickley’s characterization of the plaintiff’s claim here. Electro-Tech has, in our view, asserted and tried a regulatory taking due process-type claim.
Justice Brickley has, in our view, overlooked the obvious similarities between the instant case and Williamson. For example, each case involved a land use restriction whereby a local government imposed certain conditions on permission to build. Moreover, each case was brought pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and was tried as a regulatory taking action.
Williamson is clearly applicable in the instant case. Regardless of the manner in which a regulatory taking claim is framed, whether as a violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment or of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (as in the instant case), Williamson instructs that the claim is not ripe until the property owner obtains a final decision regarding the application of the regulation to the property. Id., pp 197-200.

 We acknowledge that Williamson involved a zoning ordinance while the case sub judice involves a city council resolution. We find, however, that this distinction does not render Williamson inapplicable here. In our view, the similarities between these two cases substantially outweigh their dissimilarities. For instance, both concern a local government’s decision regarding a particular piece of property. Moreover, both cases involve the process through which a local body renders its final decision.
As in Williamson, we hold that a property owner need not resort to state "review procedures” (like appealing the council’s decision to the board of zoning appeals or seeking mandamus) because such action would merely "result in a judgment whether the [council’s] actions violated any of [the owner’s] rights.” Williamson, p 193. Instead we counsel the property owner to use the procedures available which might enable it to build according to the plans it had originally submitted for approval. In Williamson, that meant that the respondent should have sought variances regarding each of the eight objections. In the instant case, it meant that Electro-Tech should have at least submitted revised plans reflecting compliance with the four "valid” conditions. In this way, not only would the city be afforded *84the opportunity to reconsider the dedication requirement, but also, assuming the case went to trial, a factfinder would be able to determine whether Electro-Tech was deprived of its property solely on the basis of the unlawful dedication requirement.

 This number had been narrowed from the original thirteen recommended by the planning commission on February 21, 1979.

 The City of Westland has asserted all along that Electro-Tech simply decided to abandon its plans to build the new facility since the contractor, from the start, was already months behind schedule and since the chance to secure certain government contracts had already passed. The record reveals that the entire facility was to be completed by February 13, 1979. However, as of March of 1979, Campbell had not even submitted its proposed site plans to Mr. Beauchamp for approval. Further evidence that the plaintiff may have decided to abandon its plans is the fact that, as early as October of 1979 when the city first notified Electro-Tech of its intention to condemn the twenty-seven-foot parcel, the plaintiff was aware that the dedication requirement was no longer an obstacle and yet still failed to submit its final plans.

 Justice Brickley asserts that the building department does not make the ultimate decisions regarding building requests. Post, pp 107-109. However, testimony adduced at trial suggests unequivocally that building department approval is the final step in the process. Justice Brickley himself states that the function of the building department is "to determine whether the ñnal plans conform to the requirements of the building code and zoning ordinance with such modifications as may have been approved by the city council or board of zoning appeals.” Id., p 107 (emphasis added). In our view, Justice Brickley inappropriately characterizes this function as "nondiscretionary and nondecisional.” Id., p 110.
While we agree that the building department had no authority to revise or override the June 11 council resolution, we disagree that no permit could issue unless Electro-Tech dedicated the twenty-seven-foot parcel. In our view, such a conclusion is premature at this stage.
By neglecting to submit an amended site plan reflecting compliance with the four "valid” conditions, the plaintiff not only precluded any chance of obtaining a building permit from the city (we can only speculate that the council would not have reconsidered the dedication requirement had Electro-Tech complied with the four "valid” conditions), but also made it impossible for a jury to determine whether a "taking” could have occurred as a result of the unlawful dedication requirement.

 The reason we would require Electro-Tech to address each condition imposed by the council is illustrated by the following scenario. Suppose Electro-Tech had refused to comply or was, in fact, unable to *86comply with one of the "valid” conditions imposed by the council. Under these circumstances, a question would arise regarding the extent to which the unlawful dedication requirement actually affected the plaintiff’s "beneficial use” of the land. A similar question would also arise as to whether Electro-Tech’s "expectation interest” was destroyed by the improper dedication requirement or by its own failure to meet one of the "valid” conditions. The requirement that the building department issue a final decision on each of the four "valid” conditions thus serves an indispensable function in this case.

 Like the plaintiff in Williamson who had asserted that the county’s actions had deprived it of an economically viable use of its property, Electro-Tech has specifically asserted that it had been deprived of the right to use and derive income from its property. An examination of the record confirms that this was the precise theory upon which this case was tried. A significant portion of Electro-Tech’s case in chief was devoted to estimating the amount of profit the company could have realized had it been able to build its new manufacturing facility.
In our view, determining the value of lost profits was purely speculative at that point in time. The City of Westland was entitled to impose the four valid conditions on the issuance of the building permit. Electro-Tech failed to submit any proof of compliance with those legitimate conditions. Thus, the city was under no obligation to issue Electro-Tech a building permit. Furthermore, it was questionable whether Electro-Tech could have erected the new building in time to bid on the contracts anyway. The building completion date had run by the time Electro-Tech had presented its first site plan to the city.
Because this case was submitted to the jury prematurely, it was impossible, as it was in Williamson, to accurately determine the extent to which the plaintiff’s land retained any reasonable beneficial use or the extent to which its expectation interest had been destroyed.

 Contrary to Justice Brickley’s assertion, we are not requiring Electro-Tech to "prove [to a] 'certainty’ ” that the city’s dedication was the sole cause of its failure to receive a building permit. Post, p 112. We are simply mandating, in accordance with the requirements of Williamson, that the plaintiff obtain a final decision from the city regarding its property.

 See, generally, Richardson, 1983 Annual Survey of Michigan *89Law, Natural resources, real property and trusts, 30 Wayne L R 763, 769-772 (1984); anno: Plotting or planning in anticipation of improvement as taking or damaging of property affected, 37 ALR3d 127, 163-167.

 See, generally, 27 Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, §§ 277, 288, 442, pp 66-67, 89-90, 356-357.

 Our review of the record indicates that counsel for the plaintiff went back and forth in deciding whether or not to pursue an inverse condemnation action. For example, on June 10, 1985, the first day of pretrial motions, plaintiff’s counsel stated on two separate occasions: "We didn’t plead a separate cause [of action] that we call inverse condemnation.” However, the following day, counsel reversed his position, contending that "[i]nverse condemnation is in [the fourth *91amended complaint] . . . [it] is the preventing of the use of a piece of property without paying anything for it.” Additionally, in contesting the defendant’s motion for directed verdict, plaintiff’s counsel, for purposes of appeal, reiterated the theory of inverse condemnation. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that the plaintiff attempted to pursue its inverse condemnation action in state court.

 Since the obligation to pay just compensation arises under the constitution and not in tort, the immunity doctrine does not insulate the government from liability. Tamulion v State Waterways Comm, 50 Mich App 60, 67; 212 NW2d 828 (1973); see also Sanfilippo v Santa Cruz Co, 415 F Supp 1340, 1343 (ND Cal, 1976) (the doctrine of governmental immunity applies to tort actions and certainly would not apply to "actions brought under constitutional provisions guaranteeing just compensation for public takings of private property”).
It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff did not raise this inverse condemnation issue in its application for leave to appeal in this Court. 430 Mich 858 (1988).