Metro City exercises its power of eminent domain to acquire land for a public project, including part of a public transit rail system and a traffic bypass. Metro City relocates more than 10,000 residents from the land and destroys their homes to begin

Question

the project. Nathan's Deli is adjacent to the project. Nathan's loses most of its business when the residents are moved. Nathan's files a suit against Metro City, alleging that its acquisition of the land resulted in a taking of the deli's property interest, entitling it to compensation. What is a taking? What might Nathan's claim is its "property interest" to support this allegation? What is the court likely to rule? Why?

Answer 1

A taking occurs when government action per¬ma¬nently deprives a property owner of possession or use of property.
Nathan's could claim that its "property interest'' is an expectation that the area would remain residential. If it had, Nathan's might have continued to operate profitably. In other words, Nathan's might argue that it had assumed its customer base would remain constant because of its expecta¬tion that the area would be used in the future as it had in the past.
The court is most likely to hold that Metro City's acquisition of the land near Nathan's did not cause a taking of the deli's property interest so as to require the payment of com¬pensation. Metro City did not take Nathan's right to possess its property nor its right to use its property as it wanted. An expec-tation that a nearby area would remain residential is not a right. The right to control the use of the land in that area be¬longs to its owners. When Metro City acquired the land through its power of eminent domain, it acquired the right to control the use of the land.