Sierra Terreno v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Plaintiffs, Sierra Terreno, etc., Cal-Pacific Resources, Inc., and Walter E. Bloom, et al., brought separate actions for inverse condemnation against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Plaintiffs owned real property situated in El Dorado County which previously had been zoned, assessed and valued for primarily industrial and commercial uses. The TRPA adopted a land use ordinance and reclassified plaintiffs lands as “general forest” and for other uses much more restrictive than those previously allowed.

Plaintiffs, in their complaints, claimed that the downzoning by the TRPA reduced the value of their property thereby depriving them of all its reasonable use, profit, and enjoyment without just compensation in violation of the California Constitution (art. I, § 9). Plaintiffs sought damages solely under the theory of inverse condemnation. A judgment of dismissal was entered by the trial court after defendants’ consolidated demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appeal.

*442 We conclude that an action for inverse condemnation cannot be maintained. 1 Accordingly, we affirm.

We are convinced that HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 508…

I concur under the compulsion of the majority opinion in HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3d 508 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 365 , 542 P.2d 237 ]. I am constrained however to voice my agreement with the rationale expressed in the dissent by Justice Clark.

A petition for a rehearing was denied April 4, 1978, and the petition of appellant Terreno for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 11, 1978.

Plaintiffs, Sierra Terreno, etc., Cal-Pacific Resources, Inc., and Walter E. Bloom, et al., brought separate actions for inverse condemnation against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Plaintiffs owned real property situated in El Dorado County which previously had been zoned, assessed and valued for primarily industrial and commercial uses. The TRPA adopted a land use ordinance and reclassified plaintiffs lands as "general forest" and for other uses much more restrictive than those previously allowed.

Plaintiffs, in their complaints, claimed that the downzoning by the TRPA reduced the value of their property thereby depriving them of all its reasonable use, profit, and enjoyment without just compensation in violation of the California Constitution (art. I, § 9). Plaintiffs sought damages solely under the theory of inverse condemnation. A judgment of dismissal was entered by the trial court after defendants' consolidated demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. Plaintiffs appeal.

We conclude that an action for inverse condemnation cannot be maintained. [1] Accordingly, we affirm.

(1a) We are convinced that HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1975)…