Facebook pixel Land Use Moratoria and Temporary Takings Redefined After Lake Tahoe? | VOLUME_AND_ISSUE | Pepperdine Law Review Skip to main content
Pepperdine Law Review

Land Use Moratoria and Temporary Takings Redefined After Lake Tahoe?

Laura Hurmence McKaskle

 

Abstract

This Comment provides an extensive analysis of land use moratorium, including a historic analysis of its origin, constitutional challenges against its validity, and the Supreme Court's conclusions as to its constitutionality. Part II of the Comment identifies the reasons city planning boards and local government municipalities impose land use moratorium ordinances; discusses the varying types of moratoria ordinances that are litigated and challenged by landowners and developers, and the types that are frequently used in the course of land use planning that raise no litigious concerns; and addresses where the power to enact moratoria ordinances originates. Part III analyzes the procedural requirements a party challenging the moratorium ordinance must meet to bring a claim against the ordinance, the standard of review courts use to examine moratorium ordinances, and the procedural requirements a city must meet in drafting the moratorium ordinance. Part IV categorizes traditional constitutional challenges that may be available to an aggrieved landowner or developer. Part V addresses the controversial concept in regulatory takings known as "conceptual severance," which was the center of the Tahoe-Sierra decision. Part VI classifies significant Supreme Court decisions prior to Tahoe-Sierra that address land use development issues and identify possible concerns that arise when a city places a moratorium on development. Part VII focuses on the backdrop to the Tahoe-Sierra controversy, categorizing the relevant district court and appellate court holdings that prompted the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and addressing the Supreme Court's conclusions to the constitutionality and validity of temporary moratoria, temporary takings, and conceptual severance articulated in Tahoe-Sierra. Finally, Part VIII concludes the Comment with an analysis of the implications and ramifications the Tahoe-Sierra holding will have on future cases dealing with all types of land use moratorium.