## Facts

- Bernadine Suitum owned an undeveloped residential lot near Lake Tahoe in Nevada.
- The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) applied an environmental zoning scheme placing the parcel in a “stream environment zone,” making it ineligible for development.
- TRPA denied Suitum permission to build on the lot and made a final determination that development was not permitted on the parcel.
- TRPA also determined Suitum was entitled to “Transferable Development Rights” (TDRs) that could be sold to other landowners with TRPA approval.
- Suitum did not attempt to sell the TDRs and instead sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

## Issues

1. Whether a regulatory takings claim is unripe under the Williamson County “final decision” requirement when the land-use agency has definitively barred development but the owner has not attempted to sell or transfer TDRs.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and remanded.
- Suitum’s takings claim was ripe because TRPA had already made a final, definitive determination that no development was allowed on her parcel.
- The Court held that attempting to sell TDRs, or seeking agency approval for a specific transfer, was not required to satisfy finality for ripeness purposes.
- The Court declined to decide how TDRs should affect the merits of whether a taking occurred or whether just compensation was provided.

## Legal Principles

- Under Williamson County, a takings plaintiff generally must show a final agency decision applying regulations to the specific property.
- The finality inquiry focuses on what uses are permitted for the particular parcel, not on valuation or the completeness of the plaintiff’s proof of economic impact.
- When the agency has conclusively determined that the property may not be developed and has no remaining discretion to allow development, the final decision requirement is satisfied.
- Potential mitigation or compensation mechanisms (such as TDRs) may be relevant to the substantive takings analysis, but they do not create an additional ripeness prerequisite requiring market sale or transfer efforts.

## Conclusion

Because TRPA had definitively barred development on Suitum’s parcel, her regulatory takings claim was ripe without first attempting to sell or transfer TDRs; questions about the significance of TDRs were left for the merits on remand.


Suitum v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (1997)