Also known as: substantially advance · substantially advancing · substantially advanced · substantially advances legitimate state interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A test formerly applied in regulatory-takings analysis to determine whether a land-use regulation bears a substantial relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. After Lingle, failure of the test is treated as a due-process violation rather than proof of a compensable taking.
Sterling Manufacturing purchased an aging warehouse intending to convert it into luxury lofts. After the city enacted a historic district ordinance barring demolition, the company retained the ability to renovate interiors and lease units as apartments. The regulation left viable economic uses intact while serving preservation goals.
Synergy Systems acquired waterfront parcels for a mixed-use project. The city approved a comprehensive redevelopment plan that transferred some parcels to private developers to create jobs and increase tax revenue. The plan's implementation proceeded without compensation because it served a legitimate public purpose through established procedures.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sophia Singh sought a permit to enlarge her beachfront home. The coastal commission required a public access easement across her lot as a condition of approval. The easement did not address any specific impact from the proposed expansion and therefore failed the required relationship test.
Santiago Sanchez bought two oceanfront lots zoned for residential construction. A new state statute prohibited all development on the parcels to protect dunes. The total deprivation of economic use triggered compensation regardless of the statute's environmental purpose.
Solstice Ventures owned service stations subject to a state rent-control statute capping dealer margins. The company argued the cap failed to advance legitimate interests because it produced no consumer benefit. The Court rejected the substantially advances inquiry as the proper framework for the takings claim.
Southland Foods held lakefront parcels slated for resort construction. A regional planning agency imposed a multi-year moratorium on development to study environmental impacts. The temporary restriction preserved options for future use and did not constitute a permanent deprivation of all value.
No. Even when a regulation advances a legitimate purpose, courts still apply the Penn Central factors to assess economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. A measure that leaves reasonable beneficial use intact is unlikely to require compensation, but the inquiry remains multi-factorial.
Supporting sources
The test functions as a due process inquiry rather than a takings standard. A regulation that fails to advance a legitimate interest may violate due process, but that failure does not by itself establish a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Supporting sources
A condition fails when it lacks an essential nexus to the specific impacts of the proposed development. An easement required for a height variance that instead completes a pre-existing public path unrelated to the project's effects will not satisfy the test.
Supporting sources
…public use, without just compensation." It is well settled that the government may impose regulations on private property that substantially advance legitimate state interests without effecting a taking. The question in this case is whether the restrictions imposed by the Landmarks Law constitute such a regulation or whether they effect…