Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Citation and Court
535 U.S. 302 (2002), Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed a series of development moratoria on properties in the Lake Tahoe Basin while it developed a comprehensive land use plan to protect the lake’s environmental quality. The moratoria collectively prevented development for approximately thirty-two months. Property owners argued that the temporary ban on development constituted a per se taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council because it deprived them of all economic use of their land for the moratorium period.
Issue
Whether a temporary moratorium on development that deprives property owners of all economically beneficial use of their land for a defined period constitutes a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held 6–3 that a temporary development moratorium is not a per se taking under Lucas, and that such regulations must be evaluated under the Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City multi-factor balancing test.
Rule / Doctrine
The per se takings rule of Lucas (deprivation of all economic value = taking) applies to permanent deprivations, not temporary ones. Courts should not “conceptually sever” a property interest into temporal segments to manufacture a per se taking. Temporary regulations that prevent development must be evaluated holistically under Penn Central, considering the economic impact, interference with investment-backed expectations, and character of the government action.
Significance
Tahoe-Sierra is a major regulatory takings case clarifying the scope of Lucas and reinforcing Penn Central as the default framework for most regulatory takings claims. It forecloses the argument that any period of total use deprivation is automatically a taking and gives governments flexibility to impose temporary land use restrictions for planning purposes.