A Systematic Approach to Colorado Takings Law
Publication year | 2004 |
Pages | 75 |
2004, April, Pg. 75. A Systematic Approach to Colorado Takings Law
Vol. 33, No. 4, Pg. 75
The Colorado Lawyer
April 2004
Vol. 33, No. 4 [Page 75]
April 2004
Vol. 33, No. 4 [Page 75]
Specialty Law Columns
Real Estate Law Newsletter
A Systematic Approach to Colorado Takings Law
by Chad G. Asarch, Jonathon S. Asarch
Real Estate Law Newsletter
A Systematic Approach to Colorado Takings Law
by Chad G. Asarch, Jonathon S. Asarch
This column is sponsored by the CBA Real Estate Law
Section.
Articles in this column cover a broad range of real estate land use, and related topics, and focus on the practical aspects of matters of interest to real estate lawyers
Articles in this column cover a broad range of real estate land use, and related topics, and focus on the practical aspects of matters of interest to real estate lawyers
Column Editors
Steve Sommers, Denver, Brownstein Hyatt & Farber PC -
(303) 223-1100, ssommers@bhflaw.com; Pat Barney, Steamboat
Springs, TIC - (970) 879-2561, barneyp@ticus.com
About The Authors:
Chad G. Asarch Jonathon S. Asarch
This month's article was written by Chad G. Asarch,
Denver, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at
Apartment Investment and Management Company - chad.asarch@
aimco.com; and Jonathan S. Asarch, a third-year law student
at Northwestern University School of Law, who has accepted a
position as an associate at Faegre & Benson LLP, Denver,
following his graduation - J-Asarch@law.northwestern.edu.
This article presents a comprehensive, analytical overview of
Colorado takings jurisprudence by outlining, in step-by-step
fashion, the various issues involved in this area of law.
Localities generally have the power to regulate the use of
private property to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare of their residents pursuant to their inherent police
powers.1 However, this power is limited by the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that
private property may not "be taken for public use
without just compensation."2 The provision is designed
"to bar government from forcing some people alone to
bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice,
should be borne by the public as a whole."3 The Fifth
Amendment prohibition against uncompensated takings is
applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.4
Although the language of the Colorado Constitution5 differs
slightly from the corresponding language of the U.S.
Constitution, Colorado courts consider U.S. Supreme Court
decisions "construing the federal takings clause as a
guide in determining what constitutes a taking under the
comparable provision of the Colorado Constitution."6
This article summarizes the current state of takings law. It
provides a basic and systematic approach to analyzing takings
questions under Colorado law.
Introduction to
Takings Law
Takings Law
Governments can initiate the taking of private land by
commencing a condemnation action under their eminent domain
power and payment of adequate compensation to the landowner
as part of such action. On the flip side, a landowner has a
right to bring a claim for
inverse condemnation against the government and obtain compensation for a taking of its property, even though the governmental entity has not initiated formal condemnation proceedings.7 Landowners have used the inverse condemnation mechanism to challenge land use decisions by government authorities that adversely impact their property, but which do not involve the commencement of a condemnation.8
inverse condemnation against the government and obtain compensation for a taking of its property, even though the governmental entity has not initiated formal condemnation proceedings.7 Landowners have used the inverse condemnation mechanism to challenge land use decisions by government authorities that adversely impact their property, but which do not involve the commencement of a condemnation.8
Historically, courts have not established a "set
formula" for determining whether a land use decision
amounts to a taking prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.9
Instead, the question of whether a taking has occurred
typically depended on an ad hoc, factual inquiry based on
three factors: "the economic impact of the regulation,
its interference with reasonable investment-backed
expectations, and the character of the government
action."10 As famously phrased by U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Holmes, "[W]hile property may be regulated to a
certain extent, if a regulation goes too far it will be
recognized as a taking."11 Courts have been wrestling
with the question of how far is "too far" ever
since.
In a 1992 landmark case, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
Council,12 the U.S. Supreme Court expanded its analysis in
this area by identifying a new category of per se takings
where government action deprives a landowner of all economic
use of the property. The Lucas decision, however, created a
significant amount of confusion in takings jurisprudence as
lower courts attempted to square the decision with a more
traditional fact-based approach to takings questions.
In particular, prior to Lucas, many Colorado cases formulated
the regulatory takings issue as a question of whether a
government regulation resulted in the loss of "all"
or "substantially all" of the value of property.13
In light of Lucas, this formulation of the issue intertwined
and confused the per se type of regulatory takings identified
by Lucas with the more general ad hoc three-part takings
test.14
Further, other critical elements of takings jurisprudence
remained ambiguous in light of Lucas. In particular, the U.S.
Supreme Court left open questions about: (1) whether
government action that interfered with only a portion of an
owner's land or rights therein resulted in a taking; and
(2) the relationship between other types of per se takings
previously identified by the Court, including physical
takings and takings resulting from improper governmental
purposes.15 Subsequent court decisions, including Colorado
Supreme Court opinions, have sought to bring clarity to these
issues.
Relevant Portions
Of the Property
Of the Property
Before a court can evaluate the impact of a government action
on a property, the court must determine the portion of the
property relevant to the inquiry. Specifically, the court
must establish whether it should consider the property and
ownership rights as a whole or according to its smaller
component parcels and separate rights. The relevant portion
issue has two component parts.
1. Should a court consider the impact of government only on
that portion of land affected by such action or must the
impact on the landowner's entire parcel be considered
instead?
2. Should a court consider the impact of a government action
on the separate rights a landowner may hold in land, such as
mineral rights, air rights, or other distinct rights, or must
the collective impact on all of those rights be considered
instead?
Relevant "Part" of Land
In Central Colorado Water Conservatory District v. Simpson,16
the Colorado Supreme Court held:
"Taking" jurisprudence does not divide a single
parcel into discrete segments and attempt to determine
whether rights in a particular segment have been entirely
abrogated. In deciding whether a particular government action
has effected a taking, this Court focuses rather both on the
character of the action and on the nature of the interference
rights in the parcel as a whole.17 (Emphasis in original.)
Specifically, as articulated by the Colorado Supreme Court in
a 2001 case, in Colorado "a court must look at the
contiguous parcel of land owned by the [landowner], not
merely the portion most drastically affected by the
regulation."18
Courts in other jurisdictions have held there may be special
circumstances where the impact of the regulation can be
analyzed in terms of its effect on just a portion of the
owner's land. For example, this might involve the
previous settlement of a lawsuit that treats a portion of the
land as a distinct parcel.19 Further, although contrary to
most case law, in discussing Clean Water Act restrictions,
the Federal Circuit Court in Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v.
U.S.20 suggested that where a government regulation has the
impact of destroying the economic value of a portion of land
while leaving the remainder of the parcel open for
development, the regulation might constitute a taking of the
restricted portion.21 However, that court added that such a
concern generally does not apply in zoning cases because
"there is reciprocity of advantage" to the
landowner as a result of the common good.22
In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,23 commenting on the difficult,
persistent nature of the "question of what is the proper
denominator in the takings fraction" to determine
economic impact, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that its own
precedent did not always present a consistent position.24
Nonetheless, the Court refused to resolve the issue in that
opinion.25
However, in Animas Valley Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Board of
County Commissioners,26 the Colorado Supreme Court held that
under Colorado law "a court must look to the
regulation's effect on the entire parcel owned by the
landowner. Thus, it is inappropriate to limit a takings
inquiry solely to one particular right in land, or to a
particular part of land."27 The approach adopted by the
Colorado Supreme Court in Central Colorado Water and affirmed
in Animas Valley clearly does not follow the Federal Circuit
Court's reasoning in Florida Rock.28 Thus, although the
issue was not fully resolved at the federal level in
Palazzolo, for purposes of Colorado takings law, "the
impact of the challenged action on the property as a whole
must be considered."29
Relevant "Rights" in Land
In Animas Valley,30 a sand and gravel company initiated an
inverse condemnation action against La Plata County, alleging
that restrictions placed on its property, pursuant to a
county land use plan, resulted in a compensable taking
because the county effectively prohibited the mining of sand,
gravel, and heavy minerals. The Colorado Supreme Court stated
that "the appropriate focus of a takings inquiry is the
property rights as an aggregate rather than merely a specific
right."31
In positing that "a court must determine the
regulation's effect on the full rights in the
land,"32 the Colorado Supreme Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial