Property owners brought inverse condemnation action against city and state arising out of a comprehensive plan that barred any development on their property.
The District Court of Appeal held that:
- Owners failed to present any evidence of reasonable investment-backed expectations for development of the property;
- Inverse condemnation claim was not barred by the doctrine of laches; and
- Owners were not deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property.
A subjective expectation that land can be developed is no more than an expectancy and does not translate into a vested right to develop the property, so as to support an inverse condemnation claim.