## Facts

- New York enacted N.Y. Exec. Law § 828 requiring landlords to permit cable television companies to install and maintain cable facilities on their buildings and limiting fees to an amount deemed reasonable by a state commission.
- The state commission set a one-time $1 payment as the reasonable fee for installation.
- Before Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building in New York City, a cable company installed cable lines and related components on the building’s exterior to serve Loretto’s tenants and other nearby buildings.
- After acquiring the property, Loretto discovered the equipment and filed a class action alleging that the statute-authorized installation was a taking without just compensation and also constituted trespass; she sought damages and injunctive relief.
- The installation occupied only a small area but was continuous and of indefinite duration, requiring the landlord to allow the facilities to remain.

## Issues

1. Whether a state law that authorizes a third party to install and maintain cable equipment on private property effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment) when it results in a permanent physical occupation.
2. Whether the small size of the occupation and minimal economic impact negate a takings claim.
3. Whether a statutory cap on compensation (including nominal compensation) can satisfy the Just Compensation Clause when a permanent physical occupation is imposed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the New York Court of Appeals and remanded.
- A government-authorized permanent physical occupation of real property is a taking to the extent of the occupation.
- The taking determination does not depend on the public benefit served, the minimal economic impact, or the small area occupied.
- The Court left the amount of constitutionally required compensation to be determined on remand.

## Legal Principles

- A permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a per se taking requiring just compensation.
- Permanent physical occupations are categorically different from use restrictions evaluated under ad hoc regulatory-takings balancing tests.
- The right to exclude is a central property right; compelled permanent occupation transfers a discrete property interest to the occupier and destroys core incidents of ownership as to the occupied space.
- The size of the occupied area and the magnitude of economic impact are not controlling when the occupation is permanent.

## Conclusion

The Court held that New York’s requirement that landlords allow cable facilities to remain on their buildings created a permanent physical occupation and therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation, even though the intrusion was minor and served an asserted public interest.


Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)