## 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

1. 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.
2. 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.


Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1998)