Also known as: all beneficial uses · beneficial use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A complete deprivation of any economically viable or productive use of land. The condition arises when regulation leaves an owner with no reasonable beneficial employment of the property and thereby effects a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Anthony Arnold owned a vacant parcel zoned for commercial offices. The city rezoned the land exclusively for public open space and recreation. Arnold could no longer develop or sell the parcel for any income-producing purpose. The total loss of beneficial use rendered the ordinance a taking.
Albert Allen purchased an aging riverside power plant. After designation as a protected heritage site, Allen could no longer build a larger replacement facility. He retained the ability to generate electricity at smaller scale and to lease roof space for solar arrays. Because reasonable beneficial uses remained, the designation did not constitute a taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Amber Alonzo held undeveloped lots subject to a multi-year development moratorium. During the moratorium Alonzo could not construct any permanent structures or realize any economic return. The complete suspension of beneficial use for the duration of the restriction did not amount to a categorical taking.
Aisha Ahmed owned a beachfront lodge. A new historic overlay barred demolition and large additions yet permitted continued operation of the existing profitable hotel with modest interior upgrades. Because the regulation left a reasonable beneficial use intact, it did not effect a taking.
Antonio Alvarado acquired coastal lots for residential construction. A state supreme court ruling eliminated the common-law right to build any permanent habitable structures. The judicial action did not effect a taking requiring compensation.
Adam Anderson purchased two beachfront lots intending to build homes. A state statute barred erection of any permanent habitable structures. The regulation left the lots with no economically beneficial use and therefore effected a per se taking.
Compensation is required when a regulation denies a landowner every economically viable use of the property. Courts focus on whether the owner retains any productive employment of the land rather than on the legitimacy of the government's purpose.
Supporting sources
No. Regulations that merely prohibit the highest and best use or reduce value are not takings when economically viable alternatives remain. The test examines whether any reasonable beneficial employment of the property survives the restriction.
Supporting sources
When a regulation leaves no economically viable use, the multi-factor test yields to a categorical rule requiring compensation. Partial diminutions in value or interference with expectations are instead weighed under the three Penn Central factors.
Supporting sources
…than the one proposed by appellants. Pp. 131-135. (d) The law does not prevent the terminal from being put to its "reasonably beneficial use." The law does not require that the property be put to its most profitable use. The terminal is a historic landmark and the law is a valid exercise of the police power to protect the public…