Under the Takings Clause, a regulation that eliminates all economically viable use of property typically requires what remedy?

Under the Takings Clause, a regulation that eliminates all economically viable use of property typically requires what remedy?

• A. Exemption from the regulation
• B. Reassignment of the property
• C. No remedy
• D. Just compensation

Answer: (D)

The main concept is that when a regulation goes so far as to deprive a property of all economically viable use, it is treated as a per se taking under the Takings Clause. In this per se taking scenario, the government has effectively appropriated value from the owner and must pay just compensation for the taking. This rule is grounded in the idea that wiping out all practical economic value leaves the owner with no viable use to pursue, so the restriction is treated like a direct appropriation of property interests. The leading articulation of this rule comes from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, which holds that a regulation that leaves land with no economically beneficial use constitutes a taking requiring compensation, absent a nearby nuisance or other background principle that would justify the restriction. Because of this framework, the appropriate remedy is just compensation to the owner, not exemption, reassignment, or no remedy at all.

The main concept is that when a regulation goes so far as to deprive a property of all economically viable use, it is treated as a per se taking under the Takings Clause. In this per se taking scenario, the government has effectively appropriated value from the owner and must pay just compensation for the taking. This rule is grounded in the idea that wiping out all practical economic value leaves the owner with no viable use to pursue, so the restriction is treated like a direct appropriation of property interests. The leading articulation of this rule comes from Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, which holds that a regulation that leaves land with no economically beneficial use constitutes a taking requiring compensation, absent a nearby nuisance or other background principle that would justify the restriction. Because of this framework, the appropriate remedy is just compensation to the owner, not exemption, reassignment, or no remedy at all.