## Facts

- Owners of the Savoy, a 203-unit apartment complex in northwest Washington, D.C., sought to convert the building to condominium ownership.
- District law required consent from 50% of eligible tenants before a rental building could be converted to condominium use.
- The owners failed to obtain the required tenant consent, and District officials denied the conversion application.
- The owners sued the Mayor and other District officials in their official capacities, alleging unlawful denial of the application and violations of statutory and constitutional rights.
- The owners argued (1) the tenant-consent requirement unlawfully delegated legislative power to private parties without standards, depriving them of property without due process, and (2) the conversion restriction, alone or combined with rent control, constituted an uncompensated taking.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning condominium conversion on approval by 50% of eligible tenants violates due process as an improper delegation of legislative authority to private parties without sufficient standards.
2. Whether the conversion restrictions, alone or in conjunction with rent control, effect an unconstitutional taking without just compensation.

## Decision

- The en banc court upheld the validity of the tenant-consent requirement and rejected the claim that it was an improper delegation of legislative power or a denial of due process.
- The court expressed strong doubt that the statute (alone or with rent control) supported a takings claim, stating there was little, if any, legal basis for it.
- Because the record and procedural posture left the takings claim unresolved, the court remanded the takings issue to the trial court for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may condition a property owner’s ability to change a regulated use on the consent of directly affected private parties when the legislature itself sets the governing policy and regulatory framework.
- A consent condition within a broader statutory scheme does not become an unconstitutional private delegation merely because the statute does not specify detailed standards for the private parties’ decision.
- Due process is satisfied where the statutory scheme serves legitimate public purposes and the basic policy choices are made by the legislature rather than by private individuals.
- An appellate court may remand an asserted regulatory-takings claim when factual development is required, even if the court is skeptical of the claim’s legal merit.

## Conclusion

The court upheld D.C.’s tenant-consent requirement for condominium conversions against due process and improper-delegation challenges, while remanding the owners’ takings claim for further proceedings due to the undeveloped record.


Hornstein v. Barry, 560 A.2d 530 (D.C. 1989) (en banc)