## Facts

- District Intown Properties Limited Partnership purchased Cathedral Mansions South in 1961, consisting of an apartment building and a landscaped lawn on Connecticut Avenue.
- The property remained a single lot until 1988, when District Intown subdivided it into nine contiguous lots: one with the apartment building and eight consisting of lawn area.
- District Intown sought permits to construct eight townhouses on the eight lawn lots.
- Shortly before permits were administratively approved, a petition was filed to designate the property as a historic landmark.
- In March 1989, the Historic Preservation Review Board designated the entire property (building and lawns) as a historic landmark.
- Preservation officials concluded the townhouse construction would be incompatible with landmark status; the Mayor denied the permits because the lawn’s destruction was incompatible with the designation.
- District Intown filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking just compensation, alleging the permit denials rendered the eight lawn lots economically unusable and effected a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking.

## Issues

1. For regulatory-takings analysis, is the relevant parcel the entire Cathedral Mansions South property (building plus lawns) or only the eight subdivided lawn lots?
2. Did denial of permits to build townhouses, based on historic-landmark compatibility, constitute a compensable regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment?

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the District of Columbia.
- The relevant parcel was the property as a whole, including the apartment building and lawns, not the eight lawn lots treated separately.
- Because the larger parcel retained substantial economic use and value (including continued operation of the apartment building), there was no categorical taking under *Lucas*.
- Applying *Penn Central*, the court held the permit denial did not impose a burden severe enough to require just compensation.
- A concurring opinion agreed with affirmance but expressed a different emphasis in analyzing the parcel-definition/takings framework.

## Legal Principles

- Takings analysis generally applies the “parcel as a whole” rule; an owner ordinarily may not segment a historically unified tract—especially through a recent subdivision—to convert a limitation on development into a larger constitutional loss.
- *Lucas* categorical takings require denial of all economically beneficial or productive use of the relevant parcel; continued productive use of the property defeats a *Lucas* claim.
- Under *Penn Central*, courts assess (1) economic impact, (2) interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and (3) the character of the government action; denial of additional development under historic-preservation regulation typically is evaluated under this framework.
- Historic-preservation restrictions that regulate land use without physical occupation are treated as general public-interest measures and are less likely to be deemed compensable takings absent extreme economic impact.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit held that the appropriate unit for takings analysis was the entire property rather than the newly subdivided lawn lots, and that historic-preservation denial of townhouse permits did not constitute a compensable regulatory taking because the property retained substantial ongoing economic use and the *Penn Central* factors favored the District.


District Intown Props. Ltd. P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874 (D.C. Cir. 1999)