Also known as: owners of land · landowners · land owner · landowner · real property owner
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Persons holding legal title to real property who possess protected interests in its use and development. These interests include vested rights to complete projects after substantial good-faith expenditures made in reliance on existing permits or zoning. Regulations that eliminate all economically beneficial use trigger per se takings liability unless the prohibited activity was already barred by background nuisance principles.
Levi Lowe secured a valid building permit for a warehouse on his parcel and spent over $750,000 installing foundations and utilities before the city rezoned the area. When the city revoked the permit, Lowe invoked his vested right to finish the project. The court protected the development because the expenditures were made in good-faith reliance on the prior zoning.
Lila Lin purchased coastal acreage zoned for residential construction. A new state regulation barred all building because of erosion risks, leaving the parcel with no economically viable use. Lin sued, asserting a per se taking. The court required compensation because the restriction eliminated all productive value without a background nuisance justification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Landon Long owned a single lot surrounded by single-family homes. The city rezoned only his parcel for commercial use at the request of a neighboring retailer. Luke Latham, an adjacent homeowner, sued to invalidate the change. The court struck down the rezoning as spot zoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and lacking a legitimate public purpose.
Luis Lopez bought rural land next to an existing cattle feedlot operated by Legacy Motors. After Lopez built homes on the parcel, odors and flies from the feedlot prompted a nuisance suit. The court denied injunctive relief because Lopez knowingly purchased land near the established agricultural operation.
Lillian Locke purchased rural acreage and obtained permits for agricultural structures. After substantial good-faith expenditures on foundations, the county revoked the permits under new zoning rules. Locke sued to protect her vested right to complete the project. The court upheld the right because the expenditures were made in reliance on the prior permits.
Lakeshore Industries owned waterfront property left with no economically beneficial use after a new state regulation barred all development to protect coastal resources. The owner sued, claiming a per se taking. The court awarded compensation because the restriction eliminated all productive value without a background nuisance justification.
Substantial good-faith expenditures or other changes in position made in reliance on a valid permit or existing zoning create the right. Jurisdictions differ on whether substantial construction is required or whether a balancing test applies.
A regulation that deprives the owner of all economically beneficial or productive use of the land constitutes a per se taking. Compensation is required unless the proscribed use was already prohibited by background nuisance or property principles at acquisition.
Rezoning that benefits only a single parcel or small area in a manner inconsistent with the comprehensive plan may be invalid. The change must serve a legitimate public purpose rather than primarily private interests of the particular owner.
…test of constitutionality. In respect of such provisions, of which specific complaint is not made, it cannot be said that the land owner has suffered or is threatened with an injury which entitles him to challenge their constitutionality. Turpin v. Lemon , 187 U. S. 51, 60. In Railroad Commission Cases , 116 U. S. 307,…