Does the temporary prohibition of a specific project or use constitute a compensable regulatory taking, regardless of the availability of other economically beneficial uses of the property?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, Cal., the Court held that the Fifth Amendment requires “just compensation” for temporary regulatory takings, i.e., “those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts.” 482 U.S. 304, 310 (1987). The appropriate compensation for a temporary regulatory taking is described as “fair value for the use of the property during this period of time.” Id. at 322. All claims for temporary regulatory takings must be analyzed using the ad-hoc, fact-based analysis set out in Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 488 U.S. 104 (1978). Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 328 (2002). The takings analysis must “focus on ‘the parcel as a whole,” including a temporal element, in determining the impact of the challenged regulation. Jd., 535 U.S. at 331 (quoting Mahon, 438 U.S. at 130-131. Judgment was entered in this case finding that the denial of a permit for a specific project — a three-story beachfront duplex — during administrative appeal proceedings was a temporary regulatory taking, even though other economically beneficial uses remained available, and there was no evidence of any effect that this denial may have had on the fair market value of the land. Compensation was awarded for the total value of claimed lost profits, plus additional estimated costs, as if the denial of the permit had completely stripped the property of all value during the litigation. The questions presented are: 1) Does the temporary prohibition of a specific project or use constitute a compensable regulatory taking, regardless of the availability of other economically beneficial uses of the property? (i) ll 2) Alternatively, whether it is “just” pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to award compensation for a temporary regulatory taking based solely on the lost profits and other costs of the prohibited project or use, without regard for any remaining value.