Facts
- Edward and Lorraine Kiesel bought riverfront property on the Caloosahatchee River in 1987 and built a home oriented to an unobstructed river view.
- Lee County constructed a bridge that made landfall on property adjacent to the Kiesels’ home; no portion of the Kiesels’ land was condemned.
- The bridge crossed the river at an angle that extended across the view from the Kiesels’ property toward the river’s main channel.
- The trial court found the bridge substantially and materially interfered with and disturbed the view across the river from the Kiesels’ property.
- Expert testimony attributed a large reduction in market value to the view obstruction, with pre-bridge valuations around the mid-$600,000 range and post-bridge valuations around $300,000 (and lower figures discussed by the trial court).
- The Kiesels sued Lee County for inverse condemnation, alleging a taking of their riparian right of view.
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered a partial final judgment for the Kiesels, awarding compensation based on diminution in value and treating the taking as physical; Lee County appealed.
Issues
- Whether a county bridge that does not encroach on the owner’s land but substantially obstructs the owner’s riparian right of view constitutes a compensable taking under Florida law.
- Whether the interference with a riparian right of view should be analyzed as a physical taking rather than a regulatory taking requiring deprivation of substantially all beneficial use.
Decision
- The appellate court affirmed the partial final judgment for the Kiesels.
- Substantial obstruction of a riparian right of view was held to be a compensable taking.
- The court treated the interference as a physical taking of a recognized property right, not a regulatory taking, despite the absence of any structure resting on the Kiesels’ land.
Legal Principles
- Riparian rights appurtenant to waterfront property are protected property interests under Florida law and may include a right of view across navigable waters.
- A compensable taking may occur without occupation of the claimant’s fee parcel if government action substantially and materially invades or appropriates a recognized incident of ownership appurtenant to the land.
- Regulatory-takings standards requiring deprivation of substantially all beneficial use apply to government restrictions on use by regulation, not to physical invasion of a distinct property right.
- In inverse condemnation for a taking of a riparian right, compensation may be measured by the diminution in market value attributable to the invasion.
Conclusion
The court held that Lee County’s bridge, though built on adjacent land and over public waters, substantially interfered with the Kiesels’ riparian right of view and therefore effected a compensable physical taking, with damages properly tied to the resulting reduction in the property’s value.