Also known as: character of governmental action · Penn Central factor
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factor in regulatory takings analysis that examines whether government interference with property takes the form of a physical invasion or instead arises from a public program that adjusts the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.
Caleb Chang purchased an aging riverside warehouse intending to convert it into luxury lofts. After the city designated the building a protected industrial heritage site, Chang could no longer demolish the structure but retained the ability to operate it as a commercial storage facility and lease roof space for solar panels. The designation advanced a legitimate preservation goal without physically occupying the property.
Caitlin Crowley acquired beachfront land to construct vacation homes. A state coastal council barred all permanent construction to protect dunes. Crowley retained the ability to use the parcel for temporary camping and recreation. The restriction reflected a broad environmental program rather than a targeted physical appropriation of the site.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carmen Choi operated a coal company that had long ago ceased mining operations. A federal statute retroactively required her to fund health benefits for retired miners never employed by her firm. The obligation arose from a legislative scheme reallocating industry-wide costs rather than from any physical invasion of company assets.
Camila Cervantes owned an apartment building subject to a city rent-control law that capped increases below market rates. The ordinance applied uniformly to all rental properties to stabilize housing costs. It adjusted economic burdens across landlords and tenants without authorizing any government entry onto the premises.
Charlotte Chung developed a private marina connected to a bay. Federal regulators required public access through the marina channels as a condition of permit approval. The requirement opened previously private waters to general navigation and constituted a direct physical invasion of the developer's property rights.
Cassandra Cooper owned coal-bearing land subject to a statute requiring support pillars to remain in place to prevent surface subsidence. The rule protected overlying homes and roads as part of a general program balancing mining interests with public safety. It restricted extraction methods without physically occupying the mineral estate.
The character factor asks whether the government action amounts to a physical invasion of property or instead represents a general regulatory program that reallocates economic benefits and burdens for the public good. Courts treat physical invasions as more likely to require compensation. A preservation ordinance that leaves the owner with continued beneficial use typically weighs against finding a taking under this factor.
Supporting sources
The character factor is weighed together with economic impact and interference with investment-backed expectations. A regulation with the character of historic preservation that serves a legitimate public purpose and leaves reasonable beneficial use will often tip the overall balance against compensation even when economic impact and expectation interference are present.
No. Landmark designations frequently apply to individual structures yet are routinely upheld when they advance preservation goals and leave the owner with viable use. The character inquiry focuses on the nature of the action as a land-use control rather than on whether the measure targets a single parcel.
…on the claimant, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action are all relevant. A The economic impact of the regulation on appellants is not severe. The Landmarks Law does not prevent the terminal from being used as a railroad terminal. It does not…