Eminent Domain / Inverse Condemnation

As part of a redevelopment project, a city redevelopment agency obtained a judgment of condemnation against the property of a local business owner. Issues included whether the city’s Resolution of Necessity for the project contained the jurisdictional requirement of a determination that the public interest and necessity required the project, and whether the business owner was entitled to a recovery for the loss of good will.

A private business sued a city for inverse condemnation after a public sewer, which had been damaged by tree roots, overflowed, causing severe damage to the business’s premises. Issues included whether the root invasion and subsequent sewage leak resulted from dangers inherent in the construction of a city sewer (thus permitting an inverse condemnation action) as distinguished from dangers arising from the negligent operation of the sewer (which would not constitute inverse condemnation).

Property owner sued Caltrans' for inverse condemnation based on Caltrans’s announcements and statements that its proposed design for highway expansion included the acquisition of a portion of his commercial property, forcing him to renegotiate his lease with his commercial tenant at a substantially lower rent. Primary issue was whether Caltrans’s pre-condemnation conduct was unreasonable, thus entitling the property owner to proceed with the action under Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 (property owner may recover in inverse condemnation for losses caused by a condemning authority's unreasonable conduct prior to actual condemnation).

After discovering that modifications to a private school building had been made beyond those approved in the construction permits, a city building department “yellow tagged” the building, prohibiting any occupancy or use of the building except for personnel involved in making repairs or retrieving property. The school sued the city for inverse condemnation. Issues included whether the school had exhausted its administrative remedies and whether the city’s action constituted a “taking.”