Partial owners of a multi-unit residential building organized as a tenancy-in-common brought § 1983 action against city, its board of supervisors, and its department of public works, alleging a city ordinance effected an unconstitutional regulatory taking by conditioning the conversion of the building to a condominium arrangement on the partial owners offering the tenant in their unit a lifetime lease.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Owners appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and denied rehearing en banc.
Upon granting certiorari, the Supreme Court held that owners did not have to comply with administrative procedures for seeking relief, in order to satisfy finality requirement for bringing regulatory taking claim.
Partial owners of a multi-unit residential building organized as a tenancy-in-common did not have to comply with city’s administrative procedures for seeking relief, in order to satisfy finality requirement for bringing their § 1983 action alleging city ordinance effected an unconstitutional regulatory taking by conditioning the conversion of the building to a condominium arrangement on the owners offering the tenant in their unit a lifetime lease; having denied the owners’ requests for an exemption from the ordinance, there was no question about the city’s position, as the owners either had to execute the lifetime lease or face an enforcement action.