## Facts

- Land developers purchased a 59-acre tract in 1988 and platted it as a residential subdivision.
- In 1990, they sold Lot 15 for $50,000 to a buyer intending to build a home.
- In 1991, the state archaeologist determined Lot 15 contained an ancient Native American burial mound and human remains dating roughly 1,000–2,500 years old.
- Acting under Iowa Code § 305A.9 (1991), the state archaeologist prohibited disinterment and required a protective buffer zone.
- Due to the prohibition and buffer requirements, the city refused to issue a building permit; given the lot’s size and layout, residential construction was not feasible.
- The developers refunded the purchase price, retook Lot 15, and alleged the restrictions rendered the lot effectively unbuildable and nearly valueless.
- The developers sought mandamus to compel the State to condemn Lot 15 and pay just compensation, asserting a regulatory taking.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State, denied the developers’ summary judgment motion, and the developers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether application of Iowa Code § 305A.9 to protect an ancient burial mound and impose a buffer zone constituted a compensable regulatory taking of Lot 15.
2. Whether, if a taking occurred, mandamus could compel the State to initiate condemnation and pay just compensation.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the State.
- The court held the developers were not entitled to compensation on a regulatory taking theory.
- Because no taking was shown, mandamus was unavailable to compel condemnation.

## Legal Principles

- A regulation constitutes a taking only when it goes “too far”; many police-power regulations adjusting economic burdens for the common good are noncompensable.
- Regulatory takings analysis considers the regulation’s economic impact, interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
- Investment-backed expectations are assessed in light of preexisting legal limits; purchasers take title subject to existing statutory constraints that form part of the background of property rights.
- Protecting ancient human remains and burial sites is a legitimate police-power objective and is typically treated as a use regulation rather than a physical appropriation.
- Mandamus may compel condemnation only when an uncompensated taking has occurred; absent a taking, there is no right to mandamus relief.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that enforcing burial-site protections under Iowa law—though it prevented residential construction on the particular lot—did not amount to a compensable regulatory taking, particularly because the statutory scheme predated the developers’ purchase and shaped reasonable development expectations; therefore, the developers could not force condemnation through mandamus.


Hunziker v. State, 519 N.W.2d 367 (Iowa 1994)