Landowners brought inverse condemnation action against city, challenging the city’s refusal to change the comprehensive plan’s designation of former golf course property, which consisted of two parcels, to allow for residential development of property. The Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of city. Landowner appealed.
The District Court of Appeal held that:
- City’s refusal to change its comprehensive plan was not a total taking, and
- City’s refusal to change its comprehensive plan was not a partial taking.