Agins v. City of Tiburon

Background

The landowners purchased five acres of undeveloped ridge land in the coastal town of Tiburón, California, intending residential development. State law required the city to adopt a general plan, and the city adopted two ordinances placing the tract in an RPD-1 zone allowing single-family homes and open-space use. The owners sued in state court seeking $2 million in damages and a declaration that the ordinances were unconstitutional, alleging the rezoning destroyed the land’s value. The city briefly began condemnation proceedings but later abandoned them and reimbursed the owners’ costs.

Reasoning

The main question was whether merely adopting the zoning rules amounted to a taking that required payment. The California Supreme Court interpreted the ordinances to permit construction of between one and five houses, and found that the rules promote legitimate public goals — preserving open space and avoiding the harms of urbanization. Because the owners had not submitted a development plan, there was no concrete application of the rules denying use. The United States Supreme Court agreed that, on their face, the ordinances did not deprive the owners of economically viable use and thus were not a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Real world impact

Property owners in Tiburón remain able to seek approval to develop under the RPD-1 rules, and cities may use zoning to protect open space without automatically triggering federal compensation. The Court did not reach whether states may limit available remedies for a taking because it found no taking on the face of these ordinances.