-5

Say I buy land in 'X' city and want to use it to build my own house (no permits), or run a hot dog stand or sell out stuff like garage sale clothes, or essentially anything "technically legal" on the face of it.

If the govt. has an issue with this, can I sue them or get a refund on the land?

Like, if I bought land for a SOLE purpose and the local govt. does not agree with my legal use of it, is that justifiable for me to ask for my money back, or sue them because I lose money on the land?

I'd imagine this must be possible as it is an asset, or business possible expense, and the govt. disallowing your activities on the land -- not merely just law enforcement -- could be a legal debate.

2
  • 3
    Ask for your money back from a private seller? Good luck with that... Sue the government because you didn't bother to check the zoning regs before putting money down? There is a thing call "due diligence", perhaps you should look into it... Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 20:50
  • 1
    Not having permits and being "technically legal" is a difficult dance, though I suppose in some jurisdictions possible. There's usually a limit on size for such a structure (like 100 square feet or thereabouts, significantly smaller than a typical studio apartment), you may still be required to file some form of paperwork to legally reside in it, and if you do anything to tap into utilities it's pretty much a guarantee you need permits. Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 21:23

1 Answer 1

5

if I bought land for a SOLE purpose and the local govt. does not agree with my legal use of it, is that justifiable for me to ask for my money back, or sue them because I lose money on the land

Usually not.

The government has a duty to compensate you for depriving you of uses of your property through regulation (which is called a "regulatory taking") only if it is a "total taking" which is to say that it deprives the owner of all economic use of their property that is more than de minimis.

So, for example, if your land is downzoned from allowing skyscrapers to allowing the construction of single family homes only, you have not experienced a compensable regulatory taking.

On the other hand, if the government declared that your land can't be used for any purpose other than as open space, you would have experienced a regulatory taking and would be entitled to the loss in market value which you experienced.

A more comprehensive analysis of the regulatory takings doctrine under U.S. Constitutional law, with a few nuances from this basis analysis can be found at FindLaw.

The right to compensation for a total regulatory taking arises from the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution which is incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to also be applicable to state and local governments.

Most states have parallel protections in their state constitutions and state statutes as well. A few of those state law protections are more generous with regard to compensation for regulatory takings than the U.S. Constitutional minimum standard set forth above.

I buy land in 'X' city and want to use it to build my own house (no permits), or run a hot dog stand

I very much doubt that there is a single city in the United States where you can legally build a house without permits or run a hot dog stand without a license.

1
  • It seems in San Bernadino that under limited circumstances one could build without a permit up to 120 square feet. Though those circumstances seem to require an existing, legally built (so with suitable permits) house to already be there and owned by the same person. I think these are the sort of exceptions that have allowed the "microhome" concept, as a (arguably dystopian) solution to homelessness and housing shortages, to take hold of late. Under a certain size regulations start vanishing. Commented Aug 29, 2023 at 21:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.