First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles is a significant legal case that addresses the intersection of property rights, land use regulations, and the government's power to impose zoning laws. Following a flood that destroyed its buildings, the church faced challenges in rebuilding on land that was located in a flood plain, where a county ordinance prohibited construction. The church contested this ordinance, leading to a legal examination of whether the ordinance constituted an unlawful taking under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that merely rescinding an invalid ordinance was not sufficient compensation for the church's loss during the ordinance's enforcement period. The ruling highlighted the complexities of determining when a taking occurs and how damages should be assessed, emphasizing that typical delays in the permitting process do not qualify as a taking. Additionally, the case raised concerns about the potential chilling effect on local land-use planning, as expressed by dissenting opinions within the Court. As the matter returned to lower courts, the ongoing discussion surrounding zoning and property rights continued to evolve, reflecting broader tensions between individual property interests and public regulatory powers.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles
Date: June 9, 1987
Citation: 482 U.S. 304
Issues: Zoning; takings clause
Significance: In this case involving buildings in a flood plain, the Supreme Court first ruled that a zoning ordinance could result in a taking, thus requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.
A flood destroyed buildings that belonged to the First English Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern California. The church found it could not rebuild because the buildings had been constructed on a flood plain, and a county ordinance banned building in such areas. The church challenged the ordinance, and California courts found the church could recover only if the ordinance was ruled an unlawful taking and the county refused to withdraw the ordinance. The Supreme Court found that the rescinding of an invalid ordinance was not an adequate remedy and the county must pay for excessive interference during the time the ordinance was in effect. The Court did not determine exactly when the taking actually occurred and how the damages might be calculated but did say that small delays that are a normal part of the process are not a taking. Justice John Paul Stevens expressed his concern, in his dissent, that this ruling would have a chilling effect on land-use planning because local governments might worry about potential liability. The case was returned to the lower courts, which found that the ordinance was not a taking.