## Facts

- Donald and Mrs. Agins owned about five acres of unimproved land in the City of Tiburon, California, initially zoned for roughly one single-family residence per acre.
- Pursuant to a state-required land-use and open-space planning framework, the City adopted zoning and open-space ordinances allowing one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, with density limits permitting between one and five single-family residences on the tract.
- The Agins did not submit a development application under the new ordinances.
- They sued in California state court, alleging the ordinances effected a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, seeking a declaration of facial invalidity and inverse-condemnation damages.
- The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer for failure to state a claim; the California Supreme Court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the zoning and open-space ordinances, on their face, effected a taking of the owners’ property without just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
2. What standard governs when a land-use regulation constitutes a compensable taking.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The Court held the ordinances were a valid exercise of the City’s police power and, on their face, did not take the owners’ property without just compensation.
- Because the ordinances still allowed residential development (up to five single-family homes) and open-space uses, they did not deny economically viable use or destroy core attributes of ownership.
- The owners remained free to pursue reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan; without an application, the alleged deprivation was not shown on the face of the ordinances.
- Any diminution in value had to be considered alongside the shared benefits and burdens of the regulatory scheme.

## Legal Principles

- A land-use regulation may effect a taking if it fails to substantially advance legitimate governmental interests or if it denies an owner economically viable use of land (the “substantially advances” formulation was later rejected as a takings test).
- Open-space preservation and controlling harmful effects of urbanization are legitimate governmental objectives within traditional police power.
- Facial takings challenges generally require a showing that the regulation, by its terms, eliminates economically viable use or extinguishes a fundamental attribute of ownership, not merely that it limits development or reduces market value.
- Reciprocity of advantage matters: restrictions shared broadly with other property owners, coupled with offsetting public and private benefits, weigh against finding a compensable taking on the regulation’s face.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Tiburon’s zoning and open-space ordinances against a facial takings challenge because they served legitimate public purposes and still permitted economically viable residential use, leaving the owners able to seek development approval consistent with the ordinances.


Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)