Brief Fact Summary. Penn Central’s property was designated as a landmark under New York law and therefore subject to city preservation restrictions. As a result, Penn Central was prohibited from building two structures on top of its building. Penn Central sued alleging that the restrictions constituted a “taking” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A city may, as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historical landmarks, place restrictions on the development of individual historical landmarks without effecting a “taking” requiring the payment of “just compensation” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Issue. Did the restrictions imposed by New York City’s law upon Appellants’ exploitation of the Terminal site effect a taking of Appellants’ property for public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment?
Held. No. Affirmed.
Appellants may continue to use the property precisely as it has in the past. So, the law does not interfere with Appellants’ primary expectation concerning the use of the Terminal. In addition, the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from all construction on top of the terminal.
The prevention of the construction of the 50-plus story buildings above the Terminal was a reasonable restriction substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare. Just compensation need not be paid.
Moreover, Appellants’ property was not “singled-out” to endure financial hardship. New York has a comprehensive scheme to preserve landmark structures under which 400 structures have been designated landmarks.
Several factors must be weighed to determine what is essentially an ad hoc factually based determination: (1) The economic impact of the regulation on the claimant and the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment backed expectations. (2) The character of the government action. A taking is more readily found when the government has physically invaded the property than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.
To consider whether a “taking” has occurred the Supreme Court of the United States takes into account several factors, namely (1) the nature of the interference with a property interest; (2) the extent of the interference with the same; (3) the number of units affected by the interference; (4) the ability of the property owner to continue to put the subjected property to its intended use; and (5) the legitimacy of the State’s interest in restricting the property’s use.
While these rights may well not have constituted just compensation if a taking had occurred, the rights nevertheless undoubtedly mitigate whatever financial burdens the law has imposed on appellants and, for that reason, are to be taken into account in considering the impact of regulation.View Full Point of Law