In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking refers to a situation in which governmental regulations restrict the use of private property to an extent that the landowner is substantially deprived of the reasonable use or value of their property.

While observing that the “central dynamic of the Court’s regulatory takings jurisprudence . . . is its flexibility,” the Court in Murr v. Wisconsin reiterated the “two guidelines . . . for determining when government regulation is so onerous that it constitutes a taking.”

The concept that there can be a regulatory taking—that a land use regulation can be so restrictive as to constitute a taking of private property—was first set forth in 1922 in Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon. [2] .

Sep 21, 2021 · For many, even experienced litigators, regulatory takings are a nuanced, complex area of law. As with physical takings, you’ll have what is called a total regulatory taking, where for...

A taking may be the actual seizure of property by the government, or the taking may be in the form of a regulatory taking, which occurs when the government restricts a person’s use of their property to the point of it constituting a taking.

The meaning of REGULATORY TAKING is an appropriation or diminution of private property rights by a governmental regulation which exceeds the government's legitimate police power (as the power to enact safety regulations) and for which the owner may seek a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, or just compensation (as by inverse condemnation).

Understanding Regulatory Takings. Regulatory takings occur when government rules become so restrictive they effectively “take” property without physical seizure. Property owners keep legal title but lose practical ability to use or benefit from their land.

Jul 27, 2022 · A regulatory taking is a situation where the government limits the legal use of private property to the point that the owner essentially cannot use it. In addition to the physical taking of land for government use, the Fifth Amendment also covers “regulatory takings.”

asking whether land use controls “substantially advance legitimate governmental interests,” has now been erased from takings jurisprudence, after a quarter-century run. The proper concern of regulatory takings law, said Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 16.

the Court, while cautioning that regulatory takings cases require essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries, nonetheless provided general guidance for determining whether a regulatory taking had occurred.