Section 10.17 Inverse Condemnations

• Library: Eminent Domain 3rd Edition 2013

Under the Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 17, compensation must be paid for property taken or damaged for public use by the State or its subdivisions. If the State or subdivision does not file a condemnation action as to the property which is taken or damaged, the property owner’s remedy is an inverse condemnation action to recover the market value of the property interest taken or damaged.

Pima County v. Bilby, 87 Ariz. 366, 351 P.2d 647 (1960)

Clausen v. Salt River Valley Water Users’ Ass’n, 59 Ariz. 71, 123 P.2d 172 (1942)

Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 149 Ariz. 553, 720 P.2d 528 (App. 1985), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 149 Ariz. 538, 720 P.2d 513 (1986), cert.denied, 479 U.S. 986, 107 S. Ct. 577, 93 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1986)

City of Yuma v. Lattie, 117 Ariz. 280, 572 P.2d 108 (App. 1977)

The cases discussed in Chapters I, IV, V, VI, VIII, and IX are all pertinent to the determination of whether or not there is a cause of action in inverse condemnation, and how to measure the damages if there is one. See particularly Section 5.2 and Chapter VI for examples of the factual circumstances giving rise to a successful claim in inverse eminent domain. See also Sections 9.1 and 11.19 for special rules regarding compensation in inverse condemnation cases.

Prior to 1991, the Arizona Legislature had never created a statute specifically addressing procedures for inverse condemnation actions.

In 1991, the Legislature passed what is now A.R.S. § 28-7102, which provides procedures for inverse claims arising out of the adoption of a...