Disputing Eminent Domain and Condemnation Claims for Real Estate Owners and Developers

The government retains the right at all levels--federal, state, and municipal--to confiscate property interests from stakeholders through the exercise of eminent domain or condemnation. The protection of property rights is broad and, in addition to owners, landlords, and tenants, includes all interests in the land between private parties, including easements, covenants, riparian rights, title disputes, invasion by flooding, and aircraft overflights in connection with airport operations.

Challenges to actions of eminent domain typically fall into two major categories: (1) that the compensation for the taking is not "just," and (2) that the intended use of the seized property is not a public purpose. The ability to dispute claims related to public use is often difficult due to the ambiguity of eminent domain law, but case law does guide in pursuing these claims. Counsel is often successful in disputing and negotiating the compensation offered to property owners when condemnation has been commenced.

Property owners may file a claim for inverse condemnation, where the government goes "too far" in its regulation or takes property rights without following the legal requirements for condemnation.

Listen as B. Joan Davis, Owner at Howard Stallings From Atkins Angell & Davis, discusses the grounds to dispute eminent domain and condemnation actions, how to address issues of unjust compensation for a taking, what evidence can successfully prove lack of public purpose, and what standards can be established to show inverse condemnation and require government compensation.