David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council U.S. Supreme Court 505 U.S. 1003 June 29, 1992

1
David H. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal
CouncilU.S. Supreme Court505 U.S. 1003June 29,
1992
2
Background

• 1972 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
• 1977 South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act
• Based on federal Act to require permits to be
  obtained before development in critical areas
  along beachfronts
• Late 70s Lucas and others developed Isle of
  Palms
• 1986 Lucas purchased two lots in Beachwood East
  Subdivision for 975,000
• 1988 Beachfront Management Act
• Construction of habitable improvements was
  prohibited seaward of a line drawn 20 ft.
  landward and parallel to the baseline.

3
Background
4
Lucas v Carolina Coastal Commission
Merrick Road
Lot 1
Beach Line 1986
Lucas Lot
Beach Line 1956
Beach Line 1902
5
Controversy

• Lucas bought two beachfront lots zoned for
  single-family residential development in 1986
  with no restrictions imposed upon the use of the
  property by the state, county, or town
• In 1988, the Beachfront Management Act made a
  permanent ban on construction on Lucass lots

6
Trial Court

• Lucas contended that the construction of the
  Beachfront Management Act caused a taking of his
  property without just compensation
• The Trial Court agreed and found that the Act
  deprived Lucas of any reasonable economic use of
  the lots,eliminated the unrestricted right of
  use, and rendered them valueless

7
Change in Beachfront Management Act

• In 1990, while the issue was in front of the
  South Carolina Supreme Court and before issuance
  of the courts opinion, the Act was amended to
  allow for special permits to be issued
• The State Supreme Court determined that that case
  was unripe

8
Supreme Court of South Carolina

• The State Supreme Court reversed the decision
• The courts reasoning was that when a regulation
  respecting the use of property is designed to
  prevent serious public harm, no compensation is
  owing under the Takings Clause regardless of the
  regulations effect on the propertys value

9
Dissent of State Supreme Court

• Two justices dissented because they would not
  have characterized the Beachfront Management
  Acts primary purpose as the prevention of a
  nuisance
• To the dissenters, the chief purposes of the
  legislation, among them the promotion of tourism
  and the creation of a habitat for indigenous
  flora and fauna, could not fairly be compared to
  nuisance abatement

10
US Supreme Court

• Prior decision was overturned based on two
  principles
• The court decided that the case was ripe because
  it was filed before the amendment to the Act in
  1990
• The State Supreme Court erred in applying the
  noxious uses principle
• Tie in to previous case law
• In Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 413, if
  the protection against physical appropriations of
  private property was to be meaningfully enforced,
  the governments power to redefine the range of
  interests included in the ownership of property
  was necessarily constrained by constitutional
  limits

11
Reasoning

• Lucas sacrificed all economically beneficial uses
  in the name of common good, so it is a
  categorical taking
• Creating a distinction between regulation that
  prevents harmful uses and that which confers
  benefits is next to impossible
• Background principles of nuisance and property
  law must be defined