American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Practice Exam

Which case determined that temporary moratoria do not constitute a taking requiring compensation?

1. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

2. City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

3. Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.

4. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent

The correct answer is: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

The case that determined that temporary moratoria do not constitute a taking requiring compensation is Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This landmark ruling clarified that the imposition of a temporary moratorium on development does not amount to a permanent deprivation of property rights, which is a key aspect of what constitutes a regulatory taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court reasoned that such temporary restrictions are a legitimate exercise of state police power aimed at managing land use and protecting environmental resources during a planning process. The ruling emphasized that as long as the moratorium is not excessively long or excessive in nature, it does not infringe upon the landowner's reasonable investment-backed expectations. Thus, the court upheld the principle that property rights are subject to reasonable regulations aimed at public welfare and environmental protection. This precedent is significant as it indicates that local governments can impose temporary land use regulations without triggering compensation claims, thereby providing flexibility in land use planning.