First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles

1987-06-09

Headline: Court requires compensation when temporary land-use safety rules deny all use of property and are later invalidated, clearing the way for property owners to recover damages from local governments.

Holding: The Court held that when a local safety ordinance denies all use of land and is later declared invalid, the Constitution requires compensation for the period the regulation was in effect.

Real World Impact:

Allows owners to seek compensation for temporary regulatory bans later invalidated.
May increase lawsuits against local governments over land‑use safety rules.
Could make officials more cautious about enacting interim safety ordinances.

Topics: property rights, land-use rules, flood safety ordinances, government compensation, local government liability

Summary

Background

A local church bought a 21‑acre parcel called Lutherglen and ran a campground there. After a 1977 wildfire and heavy storms in 1978 flooded and destroyed the camp, Los Angeles County adopted Interim Ordinance No. 11,855 in January 1979 to prohibit construction in the designated flood area and made it effective immediately. The church sued soon after, seeking money for loss of use, but California courts struck the damages claim under a state rule (Agins) that prefers invalidation or mandamus over an immediate damages action.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of just compensation covers temporary regulatory bans that deny all use of property and are later invalidated. The majority held that when a regulation in practice denies all use and is later declared invalid, the Constitution requires compensation for the period the restriction was in effect. The Court reversed the California Court of Appeal and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that view, while saying it did not decide other questions about whether a taking in fact occurred.

Real world impact

Property owners who lose all use of land because of an interim safety regulation that is later invalidated can seek compensation for the time of the restriction. The decision is limited to cases where all use was denied and does not address ordinary permit delays, variances, or narrower regulatory impacts. The ruling may prompt more suits asking governments to pay when interim land‑use bans are later overturned.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens (joined in parts by Justices Blackmun and O’Connor) dissented, warning the decision will spur litigation, arguing the Court ignored distinctions between regulatory and physical takings, and urging that Due Process and state procedures deserved deference.