482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250
In 1957, the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church purchased a 21-acre parcel of land in a canyon along the banks of Mill Creek in the Angeles National Forest.1 The Church operated a campground known as Lutherglen on the property, which included a dining hall, two bunkhouses, a caretaker's lodge, an outdoor chapel, and a footbridge across the creek.2
In July 1977, a forest fire denuded approximately 3,860 acres of the watershed area upstream from Lutherglen.3 On February 9 and 10, 1978, a storm dropped eleven inches of rain in the watershed, causing Mill Creek to overflow its banks, flood Lutherglen, and destroy its buildings.4
In January 1979, the County of Los Angeles adopted Interim Ordinance No. 11,855, which provided that a person shall not construct, reconstruct, place or enlarge any building or structure within the outer boundary lines of the interim flood protection area located in Mill Creek Canyon.5 The ordinance was adopted because the County determined it was required for the immediate preservation of the public health and safety, and it was extended several times.6
A little more than a month after the ordinance was adopted, the Church filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that Ordinance No. 11,855 denied the Church all use of Lutherglen and seeking damages for loss of use under each count.7 The defendants moved to strike the portions of the complaint alleging that the ordinance denied all use of Lutherglen.8
The Superior Court granted the motion to strike.9 The California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review.10 The Church appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.11
Whether the allegation that a county ordinance denied a landowner all use of its property must be taken as true when reviewing a decision striking that allegation on demurrer?12
On review of a ruling on a demurrer, all material facts properly pleaded in the complaint are admitted as true, and the court must review the ruling in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.13
Yes. The California Court of Appeal's decision to strike the allegation that the ordinance denied all use of the property is a ruling on a demurrer.14 The Church's complaint alleged that the ordinance denied it all use of its property.15 That allegation must be taken as true.16 The Court of Appeal's decision to strike the allegation is therefore a legal determination that even if the ordinance denied all use of the property, the Church could not recover damages.17
The allegation that the ordinance has denied all use of the property must be taken as true in this appeal.18
Whether a landowner who claims that a land-use regulation has taken his property may recover damages measured by the value of the use of the land for the period before it is finally determined that the regulation constitutes a taking?19
The Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires that the government pay the landowner for the value of the use of the land during the period in which a regulation that denies all use of the property is in effect, even if the regulation is later invalidated.20
Yes. The Church alleged that the interim ordinance denied it all use of its property.21 The temporary taking of the Church's property, which denied the Church all use of its property, entitled it to compensation for that period.22 The Just Compensation Clause requires that the government pay the landowner for the value of the use of the land during that period.23
The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Church could not recover damages for the temporary taking of its property.24 Invalidation of the ordinance after this period of time, though converting the taking into a temporary one, is not a sufficient remedy to meet the demands of the Just Compensation Clause.25
The Church may recover damages for the temporary taking of its property.26
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Blackmun
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented.27 He argued that the Court's decision today will generate a great deal of litigation. This will have a significant adverse impact on the land-use regulatory process.28 Stevens contended that the Court has reached out to address an issue not actually presented in this case. He has answered that self-imposed question in a superficial and dangerous way.29
He maintained that the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation for every deprivation of use. The Court's expansion of the takings doctrine will unduly burden local governments.30 Stevens further argued that the Church has not been deprived of all economically viable use of its property on a permanent basis. The ordinance is a temporary measure designed to protect lives and property from future flooding.31 He would affirm the judgment of the California Court of Appeal.32