Land Regulation: Constitutional Limitations And Their Impact

The US Constitution imposes several limitations on land regulation. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, for instance, mandates that private property cannot be appropriated for public use without just compensation, with public use broadly defined to include economic development. The Fourteenth Amendment also plays a role, with its due process and equal protection principles challenging zoning ordinances. The First Amendment's Free Speech Clause further constrains the government's ability to restrict speech, though commercial speech has been subject to more scrutiny and regulation. The police power of local governments is also limited by the Constitution, which requires just compensation when actions significantly impact private property rights. These limitations are often invoked in zoning cases, where the existing zoning classification is challenged under a takings analysis, and equal protection claims are made when a landowner feels unfairly treated.

Explore related products

Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law (Hornbooks)

$123

Land Use Regulation (University Casebook Series)

$273

Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law (Hornbooks)

$165.16

Land Use Regulation: Cases and Materials (Aspen Casebook)

$154.69 $359

Land Use Law in a Nutshell (Nutshells)

$62 $62

Land Use Regulation: A Legal Analysis and Practical Application of Land Use Law

$138.95

The Takings Clause

The Supreme Court of the United States has identified three situations where compensation is required under the Takings Clause: firstly, when the government physically takes property; secondly, when government regulations cause land to lose all its value; and thirdly, when the government mandates that the landowner use the land in a specific way as a condition for receiving a permit.

Police power

The police power is "elastic", meaning it can expand to meet the changing conditions of society. For example, actions to curb sprawl may fall within its purview today, even though they might not have been considered part of the general welfare a century ago. The concept of police power was further expanded in a series of notable court cases in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the landmark 1851 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court case Commonwealth v. Alger, and the 1905 Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

The police power is primarily concentrated within state governments, while the federal government possesses it in limited contexts, such as over conduct occurring within US territories and activities related to interstate commerce. State governments typically delegate this authority to local governments, such as counties and municipalities, which regulate land use matters in accordance with public welfare objectives.

The use of police power draws on two Latin principles: "sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas" ("use that which is yours so as not to injure others") and "salus populi suprema lex esto" ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"). These principles justify the restriction of individual liberties in order to protect the general welfare.

While states have broad authority to compel obedience to laws enacted under police power, they must do so within constitutional limits and without infringing upon any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution or their own state constitutions.

Regulatory fees

In the context of land regulation, regulatory fees may include charges associated with permit applications, permit issuance, inspections, and other related costs. For example, development impact fees, tapping fees, and zoning costs may be considered regulatory fees if they are required by local governments as part of their regulatory powers. These fees are meant to approximate the reasonable cost of the actual regulatory activity and do not include administrative fees.

The specific regulatory fees and their amounts can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific land-use regulations in place. In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for assessing and collecting regulatory fees from regulatees each fiscal year to recover the costs of carrying out its functions, including enforcement activities, policy and rulemaking, and international activities. Certain entities, such as governmental and nonprofit entities, amateur radio operators, and noncommercial broadcasters, are exempt from paying regulatory fees to the FCC.

Overall, regulatory fees play a crucial role in land regulation by providing the financial resources necessary for governmental authorities to carry out their regulatory functions effectively and recover the costs associated with enforcing specific regulations.

Explore related products

Land Use Law in Florida

$36.95 $68.99

Examples & Explanations for Environmental Law: Energy, Climate, and Land Use

$76.95 $76.95

Land Acquisitions - Appeals of Decisions (US Bureau of Indian Affairs Regulation) (BIA) (2018 Edition)

$19.9 $19.9

Criminal Procedure: Constitutional Limits on Policing

$35 $35

The Limits of Constitutional Democracy (The University Center for Human Values Series Book 37)

$45 $45

The Myth of Rights: The Purposes and Limits of Constitutional Rights

$45.4 $56

Property rights

The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause provides that private property must not be taken for public use without just compensation. This clause applies to all types of private property, including land, homes, buildings, cars, and intangible property. The Supreme Court has interpreted "public use" broadly to include economic development.

The government can impose restrictions on land use through regulations, even if they do not physically invade or occupy the land. For example, zoning ordinances that inhibit the use of private land for business or industrial purposes may violate the Fourteenth Amendment if they do not promote health, safety, convenience, or general welfare. In such cases, property owners may recover damages for the time before it is determined that the regulation constitutes a "taking."

The government's authority to take private property is limited by certain measures. For instance, the government must state a public use for the property before acquiring it, and it cannot take property merely to transfer it to private use. If the government acquires property for a stated public use and later changes its purpose, the former owner has the right to buy back the property.

The exercise of police power by the state must be minimally rational and not impose an excessive burden on property owners. Courts evaluate the burden imposed by regulations on property owners, considering factors such as economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of government action. While the government can require property owners to take steps to avoid harming public or private property, it generally need not compensate owners for these requirements.

In conclusion, constitutional limitations on land regulation aim to protect property rights by requiring just compensation for takings, ensuring that regulations serve legitimate public purposes, and preventing excessive burdens on property owners. These limitations are interpreted and applied through Supreme Court cases and legislative measures.

Zoning ordinances

The Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution limits the government's "police power" by requiring just compensation when actions impinge too far on private property rights. This can come into play when a zoning ordinance limits the use of property, such as when land is rezoned as a public park, preventing the owner from excluding others and putting the land to economic use.

Frequently asked questions