## Facts

- Herbert W. Goldblatt owned a 38-acre tract in the Town of Hempstead, New York, used by Builders Sand and Gravel Corporation as a sand and gravel pit continuously since 1927.
- Early excavation reached the water table, creating a water-filled crater that later became a roughly 20-acre lake averaging about 25 feet deep.
- Over time, the surrounding area became densely developed, with more than 2,200 homes and four public schools within approximately 3,500 feet of the site.
- In 1945, the Town adopted an ordinance regulating pit excavations through fencing and slope/berm requirements; Goldblatt complied, and his operation was treated as a lawful prior nonconforming use.
- In 1958, the Town amended the ordinance to prohibit excavating below the water table and to require refilling of excavations already below the water table, while also tightening related safety requirements.
- The amendment effectively prevented continuation of Goldblatt’s prior excavation method and led the Town to obtain an injunction enforcing the ordinance.

## Issues

1. Whether prohibiting excavation below the water table and requiring refilling of existing below-water-table excavations constituted an unconstitutional taking without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the ordinance, despite ending a long-standing lawful use, was a reasonable, non-arbitrary exercise of municipal police power to protect public safety.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the ordinance and the injunction enforcing it.
- The Court held that the challengers did not carry their burden to show the depth limitation and refilling requirement were so onerous and unreasonable as to amount to a taking without due process.
- The Court accepted the ordinance as a safety measure reasonably related to the Town’s legitimate interest in protecting the public in light of the site’s size, depth, and proximity to homes and schools.

## Legal Principles

- Police-power land-use regulations are presumed valid; the property owner bears the burden to prove a regulation is arbitrary or so unreasonable as to be confiscatory.
- A regulation does not become unconstitutional solely because it deprives property of its most profitable use or prevents continuation of a preexisting, lawful use.
- A restriction that substantially impairs a prior use may still be constitutional if reasonably related to a legitimate public purpose, such as public safety, and not shown to leave the property without any reasonable use.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Hempstead’s excavation restrictions as a reasonable safety regulation and concluded the owners failed to prove the ordinance was so extreme as to constitute a taking without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.


Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962)