Also known as: moratoria on development · development moratorium · moratoriums on development · building moratorium · development freeze
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A temporary suspension of the right to obtain development approvals imposed by a government body while it conducts comprehensive planning. Courts evaluate such a measure under a multifactor inquiry into duration, good-faith planning purpose, investment-backed expectations, and economic impact rather than treating it as a per se taking even when all economic use is temporarily eliminated.
Harborfront Marinas LLC bought shoreline property intending to build a private marina. The city then enacted a five-year moratorium on new marina permits while studying sea-level rise. Harborfront could not pursue any profitable use during the period and sued claiming a per se taking. The court applied the multifactor test and held that the temporary planning moratorium did not automatically require compensation.
Crest Builders purchased hillside land solely for residential subdivision. The city imposed a two-year moratorium on hillside permits to draft new safety codes after rapid growth increased landslide risks. Crest Builders incurred carrying costs with no interim use and sued. The court weighed duration, planning purpose, and expectations under the multifactor analysis and found no compensable taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. A temporary moratorium is not automatically a per se taking even if it denies all economic use for a limited period. Courts instead apply a multifactor inquiry that considers duration, good-faith planning purposes, reasonable investment-backed expectations, and effects on value to decide whether fairness and justice require compensation.
Courts examine the moratorium's duration, the government's good-faith planning objectives, the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the overall economic impact on the property viewed over time. A finite planning moratorium is treated as part of the parcel's regulatory history rather than a categorical wipeout.
Yes. Longer moratoria receive closer scrutiny, but even a two- or four-year pause tied to planning is not automatically compensable. The key is whether all circumstances show that fairness and justice require the public to pay rather than leaving the burden on the owner.
Yes. A claim is ripe once the government has adopted and is enforcing the moratorium. Owners need not wait until the period ends to challenge it as a taking.
…in either direction must be resisted. Majority opinion Opinion of Justice Stevens The question presented is whether a moratorium on development imposed during the process of devising a comprehensive land-use plan constitutes a per se taking of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the United States…