1. Use of the Property
Before a Court will determine that a landowner has been deprived of the use of his property, it may ask what proof of that use. In Williamson County Planning Comm v. Hamil Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court said.
Viewing a regulation that “goes too far” as an invalid exercise of the police power, rather than as a “taking” for which just compensation must be paid, does not resolve the difficult problem of how to define “too far,” that is, how to distinguish the point at which regulation becomes so onerous that it has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession. As we have noted, resolution of that 200 question depends, in significant part, upon an analysis of the effect the Commission’s application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations had on the value of respondent’s property and investment-backed profit expectations. That effect cannot be measured until a final decision is made as to how the regulations will be applied to respondent’s property. No such decision had been made at the time respondent filed its § 1983 action, because respondent failed to apply for variances from the regulations.
2. Exhaustion of Administrative remedies
Additionally, there may be administrative remedies that need to be utilized. The landlowner failed to apply for a waiver or compensation, the Highland Commission could argue to respond to a court challenge.
Are you denied the use of your property but getting no compensation. Selected cases handled on contingency. Call (973) 598-1980