information:filtering, linguistic:paraphrasing, structural:expansion
Agins v. Tiburon

The Supreme Court in Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), stated that the application of land-use regulations to a specific property constitutes a taking when it deprives the owner of reasonable, viable use of the land, or "if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests... or denies an owner economically viable use of his land." In this case, landowners purchased five acres (20,000 m²) of unimproved land within a city, intending to develop it for residential use. Under California law, the city was required to create a general plan for land use and the management of open-space areas. In compliance, the city adopted zoning ordinances that placed the landowners' property in a zone designated for one-family residences, accessory buildings, and open-space uses. The zoning allowed the construction of between one and five single-family homes on the property. The city expressed an intention to acquire the parcel for open-space preservation and initiated condemnation proceedings to take title. These proceedings were later abandoned, and the city instead enacted the zoning ordinance at issue. Without applying for development approval under the new regulations, the landowners filed suit in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The California Supreme Court held that monetary compensation was not available in regulatory taking cases and declined to recognize such takings. This interpretation was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), which held that compensation is required when government regulation effectively takes property, even if the taking is temporary.