Inverse condemnation in real estate refers to a legal action initiated by a property owner (real property owner) against a government entity to recover the value of property that the government has effectively taken without going through the formal process of condemnation.
This “taking” might occur without a formal expropriation, or it could be the result of government regulations limiting the use of the property.
A “taking” is when the government seizes private property for public use. This can involve physical taking, such as seizing a piece of land to build a road, or it might be a regulatory taking, where the government imposes regulations that restrict a property’s use to the point where it effectively deprives the owner of economically viable use of their property.
There are generally two types of inverse condemnation claims. We will go over each below.
This is when the government physically occupies or invades the property without formally expropriating it. For instance, imagine that a city builds a public parking lot adjacent to a homeowner’s property. If the city unintentionally extends the lot onto the homeowner’s property without the owner’s permission or without formally acquiring the land, it could be considered a physical taking. The homeowner could file an inverse condemnation claim for the portion of their property taken by the city.
This is when government regulation restricts the use of the property to such an extent that it essentially deprives the owner of all economically beneficial use.
Let’s say a homeowner has a piece of land on which they plan to build a multi-story building. However, the city passes a new zoning ordinance that limits construction to single-story structures in that area.
If this new regulation effectively eliminates the economic value of the property (since a single-story structure might not be economically viable), it could be considered a regulatory taking. The homeowner could then file an inverse condemnation claim against the city, arguing that the zoning regulation has effectively taken their property by stripping it of its economic value.
In both scenarios, the government’s actions have resulted in the loss of property value for the owner. Therefore, under U.S. law, the owner is entitled to just compensation, which can be pursued through an inverse condemnation claim.
Yes, the government can limit the use of real property through zoning laws, environmental regulations, and other public health and safety measures. However, if these regulations go so far as to effectively deprive the owner of all economically beneficial use of their property, it may constitute a “regulatory taking,” and the owner could be entitled to compensation through an inverse condemnation claim.
Let’s consider a few examples of regulations that could potentially deprive the owner of all economically beneficial use of their property, thus constituting a “regulatory taking”:
However, not all regulations that limit the use of property would give rise to a claim for inverse condemnation. For instance:
Remember that these examples are simplifications, and actual legal cases can be much more complex. The determination of a “taking” can depend on a variety of factors and often requires a detailed analysis of the specific regulation and its impact on the property’s value. An experienced real property lawyer can help determine whether a particular regulation might constitute a taking and whether an inverse condemnation claim is appropriate.
In an inverse condemnation action, the burden of proof typically falls on the real property owner to establish certain elements to succeed in their claim.
To prove this element, the property owner must demonstrate that the government, or a government agency, was involved in an action or project that directly led to the taking or damaging of their property. This could be through physical occupation, such as constructing a road or public facility on the property, or through regulatory actions that substantially interfere with the owner’s use and enjoyment of the property, such as zoning changes or environmental regulations.
Evidence that may support this element includes official government records, permits, construction plans, or testimony from experts or witnesses who can establish the connection between the government’s actions and the property’s taking or damage.
To prove this element, the property owner needs to demonstrate that the government’s action significantly diminished the fair market value of their property. This is often determined by assessing the property’s value before and after the government’s activity or taking occurred.
Property appraisals conducted by qualified real estate appraisers can be essential in establishing the property’s value both before and after the government’s action. The appraiser will consider factors such as the property’s location, size, condition, potential uses, and any restrictions or encumbrances resulting from the government’s actions.
In an inverse condemnation action, the taking or damage must have been carried out for a public use or purpose. Public use typically means that the government’s action is intended to benefit the public or serve a public need, such as building infrastructure, parks, schools, or other public facilities.
The property owner may attempt to challenge the government’s claim of public use by presenting evidence that the purported public use is a pretext to benefit a private party or interest. They might also argue that the government’s action does not truly serve a public purpose.
Yes, if you believe that your property has been taken without proper compensation, it’s crucial to consult with an experienced real property lawyer. Inverse condemnation cases can be complex, and a skilled inverse condemnation lawyer can help you understand your rights, gather necessary evidence, and effectively present your case in court.
LegalMatch is a reliable platform that can help you find a qualified real estate lawyer in your area. Our system will connect you with attorneys that match your needs and can provide the legal representation necessary for your inverse condemnation case. Having an experienced inverse condemnation lawyer on your side is vital to ensure your rights are protected and to help you get the compensation you deserve.
16 people have successfully posted their cases
