68. Regulatory takings (see also taking)
    1. In Lucas v. S. Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992):
"the United States Supreme Court...held, under certain circumstances, an ad hoc factual inquiry was not required and a landowner could "categorically" receive payment as compensation for a taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Id. at .....,112 S.Ct. at 2893. The Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding "takings" violations: The "Fifth Amendment is violated when a land-use regulation 'does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner economically viable use of his land." Id. at ....., 112 S.Ct. at 2894 (quoting Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 260 (1980)). The Court went on to say that "when the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking." Id. at ....., 112 S.Ct. at 2895 (footnote omitted).

    The Supreme Court then discussed the history of "regulatory takings" jurisprudence. The Court noted that there is no "'set formula'" for determining whether a regulatory action constitutes taking, and that in the past, the Court has preferred to "'engag[e] in . . . essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.'" Id. at ....., 112 S.Ct. at 2893 (quoting Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)). The Court, however, did point out two situations where regulatory actions are "compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint": (1) "regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical 'invasion' of his property no matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it . . . . [; and (2)] where regulation[s] den[y] all economically beneficial or productive use of land." Id. at ....., 112 S.Ct. at 2893.  Kelly v. TRPA, 109 Nev. 638, 648, 855 P.2d 1027 (1993) (#79)
    2. "In order to determine whether [a landowner] has been deprived of all economically viable use of his property, three essential factors must be considered in the weighing process: (1) economic impact of land-use regulations, which includes a valuation analysis; (2) interference of land-use regulations with // landowner's reasonable investment-backed expectations; and (3) character of government action. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. Benedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495 (1987) (quoting Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264, 294-95)). Id. at 649-650.
    3. Regulations that temporarily limit development in environmentally sensitive areas do not effect a taking without just compensation. Id.
    4. "In weighing these three factors, we conclude that the district court properly determined that TRPA can postpone building in critical areas for a 'reasonable period of time' as long as the 'benefit received by the property from the ordinances is direct and substantial and the burden imposed is proportional." Id. at 651.
    5. In determining whether a property owner has been deprived of all economic use, the property "must be viewed as a whole, not as thirty-nine individual lots." Id. at 650.
    6. "(D)enial of a building permit to build living quarters for the elderly did not destroy all viable economic value // of the prospective development property. ... Hence, there was no Fifth Amendment takings violation."  Boulder City v. Cinnamon Hills Assocs., 110 Nev. 238, 245-246, 871 P.2d 320 (1994) (#80)