What is the difference between eminent domain and inverse condemnation?

Eminent domain and inverse condemnation are both legal terms used in property law. In California, they refer to the taking of private land by the government for public use. Eminent domain is a process in which the government has the right to forcibly take private land from a private owner in exchange for just compensation. This process is used strictly for public use, such as for the construction of highways, a public park or other public works project. Inverse condemnation is a process in which the government can take land from a private owner without their consent. Inverse condemnation is typically used in cases where the government needs to take land for public use, like in the construction of highways, but the owner is unwilling to sell. In these cases, the government can take the land using inverse condemnation and will compensate the owner the fair market value of the property. The main difference between eminent domain and inverse condemnation is that eminent domain requires the consent of the owner, while inverse condemnation does not. In addition, inverse condemnation is typically used to take land for public use when the owner is unwilling to sell.

Related FAQs

Can I receive compensation for emotional distress?
What is the difference between market value and actual value?
What are the limits of eminent domain power?
How long does the eminent domain process take?
Can I prevent my property from being taken?
What is the difference between a public purpose and a public use?
What is the difference between a public use and a public interest?
What are the rights of the property owner during an eminent domain proceeding?
What is the difference between a public use and economic development?
How can I challenge the amount of compensation I am offered?

What is the difference between eminent domain and inverse condemnation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts