Justices Take Up Issue of Development Curbs : Environment: Court to decide if government must pay compensation when it forbids construction on coast.

In a case that could expand the rights of property owners, the Supreme Court said Monday that it will consider whether to force the government to pay compensation when it blocks development in coastal zones.

The justices will hear an appeal filed by a Charleston, S.C., property owner who was prevented from building houses on two beachfront lots, valued at $1.2 million. In rejecting the man’s appeal, the state Supreme Court said that the ban on building was justified as a way to prevent “serious public harm” to the coastal zone.

The property owner, David H. Lucas, did not challenge the law itself but said that the state should pay him for the lost value of his land. He based his appeal on a Fifth Amendment provision that “private property (shall not) be taken for public use without just compensation.”

The high court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist may be ready to move more aggressively to protect private property owners at the expense of government regulators.

In recent years, conservative legal activists have contended that the constitutional rights of property owners are violated by strict government regulation, whether it is designed to protect the environment, limit development or shield tenants from rent increases. They have maintained that property owners are owed compensation when regulation takes away the value of their property.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court gave property owners two tentative victories in Southern California cases. In one case, the court said that the California Coastal Commission could not force the owner of a Ventura beachfront home to give the public a right-of-way to the beach without compensation. In the second case, the court said that Los Angeles County officials could be forced to pay compensation if they denied a Glendale church a permit to build on a mountain campsite.

But both decisions were reached on 5-4 votes and did not set clear rules of law that apply broadly. Since then, three more conservative justices have been added to the court.

In October, the justices agreed to hear an appeal filed by the owner of a mobile home park in Escondido, Calif. He contends (in Yee vs. Escondido, 90-1947) that a law limiting increases in rent for lots in mobile home parks denies him “just compensation” for the value of his property.

“I’m starting to get enthused about this term,” said Michael Berger, a Los Angeles lawyer who represents property owners. Berger and other attorneys who represent developers and homeowners hope the court will declare that government regulators must pay compensation in such cases, even when the regulations themselves are valid.

In 1988, South Carolina lawmakers passed a Beachfront Management Act to preserve the coastline and to prevent “unwise development.” The law declared that homes built too close to the water line could “accelerate erosion.”

For that reason, Lucas was denied the right to build on his two lots. When he sued, a state judge awarded him $1.23 million in compensation. But the South Carolina Supreme Court, on a 3-2 vote, said he was not entitled to any money.

“The legislation here is necessary to prevent serious injury to the community, nor does (Lucas) contend that the setback requirements affecting him are unreasonable or disproportionate to the goal” of preserving the coastline, the state court said.

In his appeal, Lucas conceded that the state can regulate development but said that it must pay compensation if it denies him “all economically viable use” of his property.

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the government must pay compensation whenever it forbids all use of a piece of property, it could have a broad effect in coastal zones, wilderness areas and other places wherever development is prohibited.

Both the Escondido rent-control case and the Lucas case (Lucas vs. South Carolina Coastal Council, 91-453) will be argued early next year, with decisions expected by July.

Meanwhile, the court rejected an appeal (Robison vs. Maynard, 91-5897) from an Oklahoma Death Row inmate who contended that the relatives of a murder victim should have been permitted to urge a jury to spare him.