Also known as: proprietary right · property rights
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Rights of ownership or control that arise from title to or an interest in property. These rights include the authority to use the property, to exclude others, and to transfer or dispose of it.
Pioneer Energy operated a fuel depot on land that later became residentially zoned. The city enacted new restrictions but could not force immediate closure because the depot had been lawful when built. Pioneer Energy therefore retained the right to continue the existing operation despite the zoning change.
Phoenix Technologies owned an easement across adjacent land used for access to its warehouse. When a neighbor's construction blocked the route and interfered with deliveries, Phoenix Technologies sued for private nuisance. The court permitted the suit because Phoenix Technologies held a recognized property interest in the affected land.
Premier Manufacturing obtained a building permit and spent substantial sums constructing a new plant before the city changed the zoning. Because the company had relied in good faith and incurred significant expense, it acquired a vested right to finish the project under the prior zoning rules.
Patriot Insurance maintained a nonconforming office building in a newly residential zone. The city passed an amortization ordinance allowing five years to phase out the use. After the period expired, the company lost the right to continue the nonconforming operation and had to cease or convert the building.
A shopping center owner posted rules barring handbill distribution on its private sidewalks. Protesters who ignored the rules were removed. The owner successfully defended its action by asserting its proprietary rights to control who could enter and use the premises.
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. owns and operates Lloyd Center, a large retail shopping center in Portland, Oregon, spanning about 50 acres with more than 60 commercial tenants, interior malls, parking facilities, and other amenities. The Center maintains a strictly enforced policy prohibiting the distribution of handbills within its building complex and malls, with no exceptions made for such activity. On November 14, 1968, five individuals including Donald Tanner, Betsy Wheeler, and Susan Roberts entered the Center's malls and began distributing handbills inviting the public to a meeting protesting the draft and the Vietnam war. The distribution was quiet, orderly, and produced no litter, though one customer complained. Security guards employed by Lloyd Center, who possess full police authority, informed the distributors that they were trespassing and would be arrested if they did not cease handbilling inside the Center, suggesting instead that they use the adjacent public streets and sidewalks. The five individuals left the premises to avoid arrest and continued their handbilling outside the Center. They subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Lloyd Corp. on the ground that the prohibition violated their constitutional rights. The District Court found that Lloyd Center was the functional equivalent of a public business district and held that the prohibition on handbilling violated the distributors' rights, issuing a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this determination in a per curiam opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the case.
View caseA city condemned an entire neighborhood of homes and small businesses to assemble land for a new auto assembly plant. The displaced owners challenged the action, arguing that transferring their property to a private corporation exceeded the proper scope of eminent domain and invaded their proprietary rights.
This case arises out of a plan by the Detroit Economic Development Corporation to acquire, by condemnation if necessary, a large tract of land to be conveyed to General Motors Corporation as a site for construction of an assembly plant. The plaintiffs, a neighborhood association and several individual residents of the affected area, brought suit in Wayne Circuit Court to challenge the project on several grounds. In the spring of 1980, General Motors informed the City of Detroit that it would close its Cadillac and Fisher Body plants located within the city in 1983. General Motors offered to build an assembly complex in the city if a suitable site could be found meeting four criteria: an area of between 450 and 500 acres, a rectangular shape, access to a long-haul railroad line, and access to the freeway system. The city evaluated nine potential sites and selected a parcel of approximately 465 acres straddling the Detroit-Hamtramck border known as Central Industrial Park. In July 1980 the Detroit Common Council approved the boundaries of the project. On September 30, 1980, the completed project plan was approved by the Detroit Economic Development Corporation. On October 31, 1980, the Common Council passed a resolution approving the project plan with minor modifications and declaring that the project constituted a public purpose. General Motors required that title to the entire site and the rail marshalling yard must be vested in the City of Detroit by May 1, 1981. The projected public cost of preparing a site agreeable to the board of directors of General Motors is over $200 million. The site was to be sold to General Motors for little more than $8 million. The trial court conducted a ten-day trial on defendants’ motion to dismiss from November 17 to December 2, 1980, limited to the question whether the city abused its discretion in determining that condemnation of plaintiffs’ property was necessary under 1980 PA 87. On December 9, 1980, the court entered judgment for defendants and dismissed the complaint. Plaintiffs filed a claim of appeal with the Court of Appeals on December 12, 1980, and an application for bypass with the Michigan Supreme Court on December 15, 1980, which the Court granted along with a motion for immediate consideration.
View caseProprietary rights arise from ownership or recognized interests in the property itself and generally run with the land or asset. Contractual rights bind only the parties to the agreement and do not automatically create interests enforceable against successors or third parties.
No. Liability for private nuisance exists only for those who hold property rights or privileges in the use and enjoyment of the affected land, such as possessors or easement owners.
A landowner who obtains a permit and makes substantial expenditures in good-faith reliance on existing zoning acquires a vested right to complete the project. This prevents the municipality from applying new restrictions to defeat those expectations.