## Facts

- Roberta Gove owned an undeveloped coastal parcel in Chatham, Massachusetts (“lot 93”) in the Little Beach area, a narrow low-lying peninsula exposed to storms and flooding.
- The parcel lay within a hundred-year floodplain and, after a breach in a barrier island, faced increased flooding, erosion, and storm exposure.
- In 1985, the town placed the property in a “coastal conservancy district” aimed at protecting groundwater and coastal resources, and protecting public health and safety by reducing risks from storms, extreme tides, and sea-level rise.
- The zoning bylaw categorically prohibited construction of new residential dwellings in the district, but allowed specified nonresidential uses either as of right or by special permit.
- Prospective buyers contracted to purchase the lot contingent on permission to build a single-family home; the building permit was denied and the zoning board affirmed.
- Gove contended the restriction rendered the lot essentially valueless and constituted an uncompensated taking.

## Issues

1. Whether the bylaw prohibiting new residential construction in the coastal conservancy district was a valid exercise of the police power because it reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests.
2. Whether the bylaw effected a compensable regulatory taking by denying all economically beneficial use of the property.
3. Whether the bylaw constituted a taking under the multifactor framework considering economic impact and interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations.

## Decision

- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed judgment for the town and zoning board.
- The court held the bylaw reasonably related to legitimate interests in public safety, disaster response capacity, and protection of neighboring property.
- The court held there was no “total” taking because the bylaw did not eliminate all economically beneficial use; nonresidential uses remained available.
- The court held there was no taking under the multifactor test because the evidence did not show substantial economic impact or deprivation of distinct investment-backed expectations.

## Legal Principles

- A land-use restriction satisfies substantive due process if it bears a reasonable relationship to legitimate governmental purposes, including public safety and protection from flood and storm hazards.
- A per se regulatory taking requires proof that regulation denies all economically beneficial use; prohibiting one use (even residential) is not enough if other viable uses remain.
- Under the multifactor regulatory-takings analysis, a claimant must show substantial economic impact and interference with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations; hazard-driven coastal regulation can limit development expectations without requiring compensation.

## Conclusion

A municipality may bar new residential construction in a highly hazardous coastal flood zone as a valid police-power measure, and such a restriction does not require compensation absent proof of total loss of economically beneficial use or a substantial, expectation-frustrating economic impact.


Gove v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 444 Mass. 754 (2005)