PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ci-v=15 Nolan v.California Coastal Requiring a property owner to grant a public easement across the beachfront Comm'n,483 U.S.825,107 S. of a lot,before the owner could receive a building permit,was a taking of a Ct.3141 (1987). g P g property interest for which the owner was constitutionally entitled to just compensation. D. Rezoning and failure to rezone DeCook v.City of Rochester, Rezoning of property does not constitute a taking since a land use regulation 1998 WL 73050,C8-97-1518 constitutes a compensable taking only if it deprives the landowner of all (Minn Ct.App.Feb.24,1998). reasonable use of the property. If an economically viable use. of the land remains after the rezoning,there is no taking. DeCook v.Cifv of Rochester, A rezoning of land from residential to industrial, if in conformity with the 1998 WL 73050,C8-97-1518 comprehensive plan and a substantial value remains in the use of the land asn (M App.Feb.24,1998). industrial space,is not a taking that must be compensated. E. Nuisances Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal A narrow exception has been carved out with respect to regulations Comm'n,505 U.S.1003,112 S. prohibiting something that would have been prohibited by the state's property Ct.2886(1992). or nuisance laws. See City of Minneapolis i% • Meldahl,607 N.W.2d 168 (Minn.Ct.App.2000) (hazardous building). F. Access Crossman Invs.v.State by Property owners have a right of reasonably convenient and suitable access to Humphrey,571 N.W.2d 47 their property.Y• Depriving a property Yowner of reasonably convenient and(Minn.Ct.App. 1997). suitable access from a street or highway may be an inverse condemnation. Kick's Liquor Store v.City of Minneapolis,587 N.W.2d.57 (1998). Dale Properties,LLC v State, A property owner who retained direct access to traffic in one direction,but 638 N.W.2d 763(Minn 2002). lost it in the other direction due to closure of a median crossover,retained reasonable access as a matter of law; thus, the closure of median crossover, which allegedly reduced value of property,was a noncompensable exercise of state's police power. 15-26 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES • This chapter last revised 12/15/2004