Building The City : A Guide to Planning and Development

How a city develops is a complicated process that evolves over many years and is guided by many layers of local, state and federal regulations. Most land-use fights tend to focus on these regulations and how they are interpreted by landowners, local officials and citizen groups.

At the heart of most of these disputes, however, are fundamental differences in the way land is viewed. Some consider land a resource to be protected. Others say it is a commodity, like automobiles, toothpaste or pork bellies.

Both sides have considerable legal validity.

Land is protected by state and federal laws and can be regulated further by local rules, such as zoning. But even more deeply rooted is the notion that an individual can derive profit from a piece of property.

Balancing those views is the realm of the political arena. It’s no wonder then that disputes over a proposed golf course in Topanga Canyon, or whether a large office complex can be built near homes in Woodland Hills can drag on for years.

PRINCIPLES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

The notion of private property has three basic elements:

The right to use it.

The right to exclude others from it.

The right to buy and sell it.

But these rights are not absolute. English Common Law established the idea that public nuisances can be restricted. And even before the Magna Carta in 1215, the idea that the state could seize private land for public good was generally accepted. The Fifth and the 14th Amendments guarantee due process and just compensation if a person’s land is seized by the government.

PUBLIC GOALS VERSUS PRIVATE WANTS

The use of eminent domain by governments for everything from freeway overpasses to parks is well established. Other instances are less clear-cut, such as when a government agency creates regulations that restrict use of a property owner’s land.

Such regulations might include zone changes that allow less development or halt it altogether. If those regulations deprive a land owner of all viable use of the property, it is considered a “regulatory taking” and is viewed the same as an eminent domain action. Deciding the “viable use” of the land, however, is subject to interpretation.

UNEASY BALANCE

Two local cases--Soka University and Warner Ridge--demonstrate the difficult relationship between the rights of private property owners and responsibilities of public officials.

In the Warner Ridge case, the city of Los Angeles changed the zoning on land proposed for an office complex in Woodland Hills so only single-family houses were allowed. The developer sued, claiming the action deprived him of economically viable use of the land. Several judges agreed and forced the city to change the zoning back.

In the Soka University case, public parks officials are trying to condemn the school’s Calabasas campus to use it as a visitors center to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. That case is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.

EVOLUTION OF LAND LAWS

Here are some landmark cases governing how property, from a giant office complex to a single-family home, can be used or protected:

Village of Euclid vs Ambler Realty Co.: In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of zoning--a new concept at the time--rejecting a realty company’s claim that the Ohio city of Euclid’s zoning ordinance took property without due process.

Penn Central Transportation Co. vs New York City: In 1978, the Supreme Court legitimized historic preservation efforts. It rejected claims by the owners of New York’s Grand Central Terminal--who wanted to build an office tower over the historic station--that the city’s rejection of the project devalued their property.

Agins vs City of Tiburon: In 1979, the California Supreme Court ruled that landowners are not entitled to compensation from the government if a zoning or other law reduces the value of their property. Instead, it ruled, the property owner could sue only to have the restrictive ordinance overturned.

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church vs County of Los Angeles: In 1987, the Supreme Court essentially overturned the Agins case by ruling that property owners could indeed collect compensation from the government if their land is devalued through such “regulatory takings.” The case involved a church camp in Tujunga Canyon that was not allowed to rebuild after a flood.

Sources: “Guide to California Planning,” by William Fulton; “The Making of Urban America: A History of City Planning in the United States,” by John W. Reps; Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Researched by Aaron Curtiss/Los Angeles Times