What is the difference between condemnation and a regulatory taking?

The difference between condemnation and a regulatory taking lies in the nature of the government intervention. Condemnation is the outright taking of private land for public use, for which the government is obligated to offer fair compensation to the property owner. This typically happens in order to build infrastructure such as roads or public buildings. Regulatory takings, on the other hand, involve a restriction or regulation imposed by the government which limits the use of a property. This can be something as simple as a zoning ordinance or as extensive as environmental regulation, which severely limits a landowner’s ability to develop or use their land. In the case of a regulatory taking, the government is not obligated to pay compensation to the landowner because the government has not actually taken the property; instead, the landowner has been denied the full use of their land. The distinction between condemnation and a regulatory taking is an important one in California as it often determines whether or not the government must provide fair compensation for the property taken or restricted.

Related FAQs

Are there any defenses against an eminent domain action?
What is the difference between a public use and a public benefit?
How long does the eminent domain process take?
Can my property be taken if I do not receive fair compensation?
What is inverse condemnation?
What is the fair market value of my property?
What is the difference between eminent domain and inverse condemnation?
What is a public purpose?
What is the eminent domain process?
What is the difference between a public use and economic development?

What is the difference between condemnation and a regulatory taking?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts