Also known as: property owners · landowner · real property owner
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A person or entity holding legal title or possessory rights in real property. The holder may acquire vested rights to complete a use or development through good-faith reliance on a permit or zoning accompanied by substantial expenditures. A regulation that eliminates all economically beneficial use of the land constitutes a per se taking requiring compensation unless the use was already barred by background nuisance or property principles. Rezoning that benefits a single parcel in a manner inconsistent with the comprehensive plan may constitute invalid spot zoning.
Philip Powell obtained a building permit and spent $180,000 grading and pouring foundations for a warehouse before the city rezoned the parcel residential. When the city revoked the permit, Powell invoked his vested right. The court held that the substantial expenditures made in good-faith reliance on the permit prevented the municipality from applying the new zoning to halt the project.
Preston Pratt purchased coastal acreage zoned for residential development. A new state statute barred all construction to protect dunes, leaving the parcel with no economically viable use. Pratt sued, asserting a per se taking. The court required compensation because the regulation eliminated all productive use and the prohibited activity was not a common-law nuisance at acquisition.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pierre Poulin owned a single corner lot surrounded by single-family homes. The city rezoned only his parcel to commercial use at his request. Neighboring owners sued. The court invalidated the rezoning as spot zoning because it benefited one owner without advancing the comprehensive plan or general welfare.
Pilar Pena, a property owner near a wildlife habitat, sued federal agencies over a regulation she claimed would reduce property values. The court dismissed the suit because Pena failed to show a concrete, particularized injury traceable to the regulation that would be redressed by a favorable decision.
Pablo Perez owned Grand Central Terminal. After the city designated it a landmark, Perez could not build a tower above the station without approval. The court upheld the designation, holding that the restrictions did not constitute a taking because they permitted a reasonable return on the property as a whole.
Patricia Patel, a nonresident, held shares in a Delaware corporation that owned real property in the state. A shareholder sued and sought to assert jurisdiction over Patel through sequestration of the shares. The court held that the mere presence of property in the forum was insufficient to support jurisdiction over the absent owner.
The owner must demonstrate good-faith reliance on a permit or existing zoning plus substantial expenditures or a change in position that would make denial inequitable. Some jurisdictions require a valid permit and substantial construction. Others apply a balancing test.
Supporting sources
A regulation effects a per se taking when it deprives the owner of all economically beneficial or productive use of the land. Compensation is required unless the prohibited use was already barred by background principles of nuisance or property law at the time of acquisition.
Supporting sources
The court examines whether the change benefits a single parcel or small area in a manner inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or surrounding uses and lacks a legitimate public purpose. When the rezoning primarily benefits one landowner rather than the community, it may be struck down as arbitrary or a denial of equal protection.
Supporting sources
…that property cannot be subjected to a court's judgment unless reasonable and appropriate efforts have been made to give the property owners actual notice of the action. Schroeder v. City of New York , 371 U. S. 208 (1962); Walker v. City of Hutchinson , 352 U. S. 112 (1956); Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust…