## Facts

- David H. Lucas bought two vacant residential lots on the Isle of Palms, South Carolina, intending to build single-family homes similar to neighboring properties.
- When Lucas purchased the lots in 1986, they were not subject to the state’s coastal-zone building permit requirements.
- In 1988, South Carolina enacted the Beachfront Management Act, establishing a baseline: new “permanent habitable structures” were prohibited seaward of the line.
- Lucas’s lots fell seaward of the baseline, and the Act barred him from building any permanent habitable structures on the parcels.
- Lucas sued, alleging the Act deprived him of all economically viable use of his land and therefore effected a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The trial court found the regulation rendered the lots valueless and awarded Lucas approximately $1.23 million.
- The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that regulations aimed at preventing harmful or noxious uses analogous to public nuisances do not require compensation, and emphasizing legislative findings about protecting coastal resources.

## Issues

1. Whether the takings claim was unripe because a later statutory amendment created a special-permit process that might allow some development.
2. Whether a regulation that denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land is a taking requiring just compensation.
3. Whether the State may avoid compensation for a total deprivation by showing the prohibited uses were already barred by background principles of state property and nuisance law.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court held the claim ripe because the state court decided the case on the merits, and requiring pursuit of the later-created permit process would not be sound procedure for litigating the preamendment deprivation.
- The Court held that when a regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land, it constitutes a categorical taking requiring just compensation.
- The State may avoid compensation only if the restricted uses were never part of the owner’s title under background principles of the State’s property and nuisance law.
- The Court rejected a freestanding “harmful or noxious use” police-power exception as sufficient, by itself, to defeat compensation for a total deprivation.
- The Court reversed and remanded for determination whether South Carolina’s background principles already prohibited the homebuilding Lucas sought.

## Legal Principles

- Two categorical takings rules apply without case-specific inquiry: (1) physical invasions, and (2) regulations that deny all economically beneficial or productive use of land.
- A regulation that leaves land without economically beneficial or productive use is the functional equivalent of a physical appropriation from the owner’s standpoint and is a per se taking.
- For total deprivations, the State can defeat compensation only by establishing that the prohibited uses were not part of the owner’s property rights because they were already limited by background principles of property and nuisance law.
- Legislative labeling of a restriction as harm-preventing does not, by itself, exempt a total deprivation from the compensation requirement.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a regulation eliminating all economic use of land is a categorical taking unless the State proves the barred use was already forbidden by preexisting property or nuisance limits, and it remanded for that determination.


Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)