Also known as: categorical takings · per se taking
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A per se rule in takings jurisprudence that requires just compensation when government action either physically occupies private property or deprives it of all economically beneficial use. The rule applies without regard to the public purpose or the magnitude of economic impact once the occupation or total deprivation is shown. Exceptions exist only for background principles of nuisance or property law that already prohibited the use at the time of acquisition.
Caitlin Crowley purchased two oceanfront parcels intending to build single-family homes. A state coastal council later enacted a setback rule that barred all construction on the lots. A trial court found the regulation left the parcels with no economically viable use. The court held that the total deprivation triggered the categorical rule and required just compensation.
Charles Cunningham and other owners held vacant lots near Lake Tahoe. A regional planning agency imposed successive moratoria that prevented any building for nearly six years while it studied environmental controls. The owners claimed the temporary ban eliminated all economic use. The court examined the duration, planning purpose, and investment expectations rather than applying an automatic categorical rule.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Chloe Chen owned a rental building. A city ordinance required her to permit a cable company to attach small boxes and wires to the roof. The installation was permanent and occupied a portion of the structure. The court treated the mandated physical occupation as a categorical taking that demanded compensation regardless of the minimal size or claimed public benefit.
Cody Callahan lived downwind from a newly designated agricultural area. County approval conferred statutory immunity on the hog farm against nuisance suits for odors and runoff. The neighbors argued the immunity constituted a physical invasion of their land. The court analyzed whether the immunity effected a categorical taking by transferring the right to exclude.
Cassandra Cooper owned a mobile-home park. A city ordinance capped rents on the pads and allowed tenants to sell their homes in place. The owners contended the rules transferred a discrete property interest to tenants. The court held that the regulation did not amount to a physical appropriation and therefore fell outside the categorical taking category.
Claire Campbell grew raisins and was required by a federal marketing order to surrender a percentage of each crop to a government reserve. Government personnel took physical possession of the raisins. The Court held that the compelled transfer of personal property constituted a categorical taking even though the grower retained a contingent interest in possible future proceeds.
A categorical taking occurs when government action results in a permanent physical occupation or a total deprivation of all economically beneficial use. In those situations compensation is required without balancing economic impact or investment expectations. Penn Central analysis applies only when the regulation leaves some economically viable use and requires weighing multiple factors.
A temporary moratorium that denies all economic use for a limited period is not automatically treated as a categorical taking. Courts instead examine duration, government planning purpose, owner expectations, and effects on value to decide whether compensation is required.
Yes. When the government physically appropriates a discrete portion of personal property, such as crops or manufactured goods, the action is treated as a per se taking that requires just compensation.
…compensation was required. Regulations that deny the owner of land all economically beneficial use of his property constitute a categorical taking for which compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment, unless the prohibited use interests were not part of the owner's title to begin with. The trial court's finding that the…