All Appellate Decision Cases Listed Alphabetically

Mistakenly-issued approvals do not bind a local zoning authority.

Rough proportionality analysis compares the expense to the property owner with the cost to address the development’s impact.

Discussion of how governmental expenses factor into rough proportionality analysis.

Applying the rough proportionality test to exactions.

Although a contract may be a type of property right, there is no taking if a public agency does not renew a contract.

Reasonableness of Impact Fees.

Land use may be regulated for aesthetic purposes.

The 5th Amendment’s “Public Use” clause includes a “public purpose” for which Congress could properly exercise its police powers. Acquiring property for redevelopment project for aesthetic improvement was constitutional.

Discusses what constitutes a “protectible property right.”

Regulation of property for the public good becomes a taking if the regulation deprives owner of a significant amount of economic value.

Standards of review for legislative and administrative decisions.

Exactions must be reasonably attributable to development activity.

Property along public roads entitled to access to and from that road.

Standing requirements under LUDMA are the same as traditional and alternative standing tests.

Establishing standing, or the right to pursue a claim in court.

Just compensation based on property’s highest and best use.

Compensation is the remedy for a property taking.

Discusses the operation and applicability of the Takings Clause, including “damaging” as a taking under the Utah Constitution.

Public’s right to utilize the waters of the state, including touching stream beds.

Jury may determine amount of compensation, if matter is postponed, new valuation may need to be established. Zoning ordinance may be a regulatory taking if all economic use of the property is lost.

Denial of conditional use permit must be based on concrete, factual evidence.

Denial of Conditional Use Permit is arbitrary when it is not supported by substantial evidence.

Requirements for eminent domain complaint; determining value.

Value enhancement due to project not included in fair market value; comparable sales must be of similar properties.

Discusses what constitutes a taking.

Establishes “rough proportionality” test for exactions.

Recovery for permanent damaging of property for a public use.

Compensation required even if taking is only “temporary.”

Appellate review of land use decisions, what makes a decision arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.

Appeal of land use decision may include any challenge to the decision or the law’s validity.

Takings claim may arise from storm water entering property from a public storm drain system.

Distinction between legislative and administrative functions.

Authority to enact zoning ordinances.

The “Public Use” requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers. The Government itself does not have to use the property. Hawaii statute that permitted condemnation of residential tracts to transfer ownership to existing lessees to reduce concentration of land ownership served a legitimate public purpose and was not a purely private taking.

Validity of impact fees.

Impact fees must not require newly-developed properties to bear more than an equitable share of capital costs for facilities.

The concept of “public purpose” is defined broadly. The use of eminent domain by private parties to carry out a city-approved development plan to promote economic development was not unconstitutional.

The entire range of property rights available to the owner is critical to a takings analysis.

Exaction analysis applies whether government imposes conditions on approval or denies an permit, and includes money exactions for offsite mitigation.

Zoning ordinances may be subject to initiative and referenda.

What constitutes a “protectible property interest.”

If a regulation requires any physical occupation of private property, a taking has occurred.

Taking occurs when regulation destroys all property value.

Ambiguity in eminent domain statute construed in favor of property owner.

Mistaken characterization does not establish zoning estoppel.

There must be an essential link, or “nexus” between an exaction and a legitimate government interest.

Appeal period begins to run when all required administrative actions have been completed.

Utah Court of Appeals 2009UT App 291, 221 P.3d 280Claims not raised before a trial court may not be raised before an appellate court. A court’s review of a local government’s land use decision is specifically limited to the record provided by the local government. A reviewing court may not accept or consider any evidence outside of the record. A court’s

Ripeness considerations in regulatory takings.

The Vested Rights Rule is based on estoppel, or detrimental reliance on a zoning ordinance.

Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

Review of land use decisions by district and appellate courts.

When a regulation constitutes a taking of private property.

If regulation of property goes too far, it will be considered a taking.

Discussion of appeals and right to file lawsuit to pursue claims arising from a land use decision.

Redevelopment agencies must follow substantive and procedural rules when exercising eminent domain authority.

Cities may only exercise authority granted to them by the Legislature.

Temporary interference with property is not a taking or damaging.

Administrative remedies must be exhausted before a land use decision may be challenged in court.

School districts may be charged impact fees.

Estoppel, waiver, or laches generally not available as a defense, except in exceptional circumstances.

Damaging property as a taking under the Federal Constitution.

Discusses criteria for variances.

No vested rights if an application does not conform to the zoning ordinance.

Discusses the “more necessary public use” rule pertaining to eminent domain.

Property owners entitled to assistance from Ombudsman

Discusses the authority of the Ombudsman’s Office to mediate takings disputes.

Validity of zoning ordinances.

Mere ownership or purchase of land does not constitute a substantial change in position sufficient enough to invoke zoning estoppel.

Severance damages may include loss of access or parking.

Total denial of access is compensable.

Substantial and material impairment of a property owner’s right of access can constitute a compensable taking.

Validity of inspection fees.

Compensation is not adjusted due to the presence of the public project being built.

Discusses some of the factors in determining Just Compensation.

Each property interest valued separately and individually.

Access rights do not include rights to existing traffic flow or guaranteed access at a specific location.

Decision to grant or deny a conditional use application must be based upon substantial evidence; consent of neighbors may not be a requirement for a conditional use permit.

Zoning estoppel only available in extraordinary circumstances.

When “zoning estoppel” may be established.

Rebutting a presumption of abandonment of a nonconforming use.

Land uses may be regulated to promote public welfare.

Denial of conditional use permit may not be based solely on adverse public comments, but must be based on substantial evidence.

When continuous public use causes dedication of private land for a public road.

All required criteria must be met for a zoning variance

Establishes Utah’s Vested Rights Rule.

Ripeness and right to pursue claims for compensation.

Zoning authorities given wide latitude of discretion. Equitable defenses for zoning ordinance only available in exceptional circumstances.

Right to rent property may not be conditioned on forfeiture of right to compensation for mandated physical occupation of the property.