Real estate developer, which purchased 4,461 acres of land along a river for $18 million, brought action against county alleging unconstitutional taking and substantive due process violation, after developer was unable to remove county’s floodway designation, which involved an effective prohibition on construction. The Circuit Court granted summary judgment to county on per se taking and substantive due process claims, and, after a bench trial, found in favor of county on regulatory taking claim. Developer appealed.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that:
- County did not take flowage easement on property;
- County did not engage in exaction of property;
- County’s restrictions did not amount to a categorical taking of property; and
- County’s restrictions did not constitute a regulatory taking of property.
County did not take flowage easement on real estate developer’s property by adopting revised flood maps of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which designated most of developer’s property as lying within the regulatory floodway and triggered development restrictions that prevented expansion of preexisting levees, and therefore developer was not entitled to just compensation under the Takings Clause. County did not increase the flood hazard to which developer’s property had historically been exposed, and county’s action merely maintained the status quo in terms of flood risk.
County did not engage in exaction of real estate developer’s property by adopting revised flood maps of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which designated most of developer’s property as lying within the regulatory floodway and triggered development restrictions, and therefore developer was not entitled to just compensation under the Takings Clause. County did not require developer to grant an easement or dedicate a portion of its property for public use.
County’s developmental restrictions on property within regulatory floodway did not amount to a categorical taking of real estate developer’s property that was partially located in a floodway, and therefore developer was not entitled to just compensation under the Takings Clause. 30% of developer’s property was not designated as lying within floodway, and entire tract of property retained substantial value for agricultural and other purposes, evidenced by sale of approximately 3,000 acres of the property for almost $10 million.
County’s floodplain development restrictions prohibiting construction within regulatory floodway did not constitute a regulatory taking of real estate developer’s property partially located within floodplain. Even if restrictions significantly impaired the fair market value of developer’s property by preventing mixed-use development, developer lacked reasonable investment-backed expectations knowing property was likely subject to restrictions before purchasing it, and county had legitimate and substantial health and safety-related bases for restrictions that burdened more individuals that just developer and benefited property owners and taxpayers.
Real estate developer’s investment-backed expectations for development of its property located within regulatory floodway and subject to county’s developmental restrictions were unreasonable, which weighed against a finding that county had engaged in regulatory taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. Even though developer subjectively believed it would be allowed to develop property, county participated in National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for 18 years before property was purchased, developer was aware at the time of property’s purchase of revised flood map affecting over 70% of the developer’s property, and developer required approvals from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and county to proceed with development plan.
The character of county’s floodplain development restrictions provided substantial and legitimate social and economic cost mitigation and health and safety-related benefits without unjustly burdening real estate developer with property located in floodplain, and therefore regulations weighed against a finding that county had engaged in regulatory taking of property under the Fifth Amendment. County ordinance encompassed over 16,500 acres throughout county and not just developer’s property, restrictions benefited all owners of floodplain property by allowing county to reduce flood hazards, and restrictions benefited all taxpayers by reducing potential liability for response and rescue to flooding emergencies.