Eminent Domain Report

When public agencies acquire property for future public projects, many times they are only focused on negotiating the acquisition price with the property owner.  If an acquisition price can be agreed upon voluntarily, eminent domain can be avoided.  But focusing solely on negotiations with the property owner can lead to surprises and exposure on total compensation that may be due to other parties.  A recent article in the Riverside Record, RUSD Agrees To Pay Nearly $1M To Relocate Cellphone Tower, serves as an important reminder for agencies that they must carefully review title ...

We are closely tracking the newly released Senate Bill 254 (Becker, 2025) Study Report, prepared by the California Earthquake Authority (CEA) as Administrator of the Wildfire Fund. While the report outlines several pathways to stabilize California’s insurance and energy markets, one of the most significant proposals is the recommendation to fundamentally overhaul inverse condemnation liability for utilities in California.

I. The Strict Liability Standard Under Fire

In California, courts have consistently applied inverse condemnation liability —rooted in Article I ...

Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 151, is a landmark precondemnation entry case that reinforced the statutory right of a party with the power of eminent domain to enter property to conduct tests and other investigatory work deemed necessary to determine the suitability of property for a public project.

In its latest iteration, the California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District, on March 26, 2026 (Department of Water Resources Cases), rejected landowners’ arguments that the Department of Water Resources must meet additional statutory ...

Public utilities rely on access to private and public land to build and maintain essential infrastructure. When voluntary acquisition efforts fall short, litigation becomes a necessary tool to secure those rights. Understanding the eminent domain litigation process enables utilities to navigate court procedures effectively, maintain project timelines, and manage risk while balancing the rights of property owners. This overview dives into what happens once litigation becomes necessary. …

We’ve previously reported on the “Rails to Trails” process by which old railroad corridors are being abandoned and converted into other uses, such as hiking, biking or other trail purposes, and the potential ability of adjacent property owners to seek just compensation in certain circumstances. But what happens when the railroad is owned in fee by the railroad, or alternatively, where the railroad continues to operate but adds a pathway within the railroad corridor? Is compensation owed in these circumstances? 

The Nossaman team recently litigated these issues in a case ...

Under Arizona’s Constitution, as under its federal counterpart, a condemning authority may acquire private property if the use to which the acquired property will be put is a proper public use. From the outset of any contemplated acquisition, it is imperative that a governmental entity determine that the purpose for the acquisition will constitute a public use. This article summarizes some of the law governing public use.

A judge must determine that a proposed use is “really public” once an eminent domain action is filed. Ariz. Const. Art. 2, §17; A.R.S. § 12-1132(A). Though ...

As Nossaman’s annual eminent domain seminars are coming up on April 21st and April 28th, we thought it would be a perfect opportunity to do a little refresher on the condemnation process so that attendees are ready to dive in at the upcoming seminars.

What is Eminent Domain?

Eminent domain is the power to take property for “public use” upon paying just compensation. This power is rooted in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution.

Who has the Power of Eminent Domain?

In California, traditional public entities ...

Courts have historically denied inverse condemnation claims by property owners against water suppliers where the quality of water or chemicals used allegedly caused corrosion or damage to water pipes.  However, under a recent line of cases, that bar to recovery may be shifting.  In a new unpublished decision, Micheli v. City of Fresno (2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1027), the Court permitted a large-scale, class action inverse condemnation lawsuit to proceed where homeowners claimed the City’s water supply corroded their pipes and caused health-related concerns. 

Background ...

When the government approves a private development that diminishes neighboring property values, can a property owner maintain a takings claim?  According to a recent California court decision, the answer is no – governmental approval of a private project cannot trigger inverse condemnation liability. 

Background

In De La Cruz v. City of Los Angeles (2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26413), a new six-story apartment building was being constructed next to the plaintiff’s residence.  The development was approved without a full environmental impact report based on a CEQA exemption for ...

When a lawsuit involves both inverse condemnation claims and other tort claims, trial courts often bifurcate the proceedings. A recent unpublished opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal, Rainey v. Nevada Irrigation District, 2026 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 231, addresses what happens when findings made in the first phase resolve factual issues common to the claims reserved for the second phase.

Background

Two neighboring property owners sued the Nevada Irrigation District, alleging that water leaking and seeping from the District’s irrigation ditch caused landslides ...