Eminent Domain Report

When a property owner brings a regulatory taking / inverse condemnation claim based on a city or county’s zoning decisions, the owner often provides context and history, including public statements made by staff, board members or city council members.  Are those public statements protected speech and therefore subject to California’s Anti-SLAPP statute?  A recent California Court of Appeal decision, City of Redondo Beach v. 9300 Wilshire, provides some context on what is and what is not permissible.  … 

Housing in California is a hot topic, particularly when the short-term rentals are thrown into the mix. Those opposed to short-term rentals often argue that it removes permanent housing stock from the market and that such rentals negatively impact communities and reduce surrounding property values due to the temporary character of the residents, constant turn-over, noise and overuse. On the other hand, short-term rentals may be an opportunity to maximize income from one’s property, and many investors purchase properties based on their income-generating potential. …

When a local government agency impermissibly spot zones a property, thereby depriving it of all economically beneficial uses, can the property owner seek to invalidate that zoning decision, or is the owner left with a claim for damages under the theory of a regulatory taking? In a recent published California district court decision ...

Earlier this month, the California Court of Appeal answered a question that had been outstanding for almost two decades: What standard of review applies to beneficial spot zoning? In Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, that question was finally answered when the Court held that beneficial spot zoning will be valid only when the record demonstrates that the zoning is "in the public interest."

In 1996, Associate California Supreme Court Justice Stanley Mosk stated in a concurring decision that although courts are traditionally deferential with respect to zoning ...