inverse condemnation claim in California

2022(Aaron v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 40 Cal.App.3d 471, 486, 493 .) To prevail on an inverse condemnation claim, “there must be an invasion or an appropriation of some valuable property 31 right which the landowner possesses and the invasion or appropriation must directly and specially affect the landowner to his injury.” (Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110 , 119–120.) The landowner’s property must be singled out for singular and unique treatment in contrast to other landowners who could be affected by the proposed public work.

1975But the authorities so holding also point out “the danger to beneficial long-range planning in the indiscriminate application of the doctrine of inverse condemnation.” (See Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, supra, 10 Cal.3d 110, 120, fn. 5 .) “[T]o allow recovery under all circumstances for decreases in the market value caused by precondemnation announcements might deter public agencies from announcing sufficiently in advance their intention to condemn.

2019That question is not in dispute here, so we need not decide in this case whether a section 1260.040 motion is a proper way to seek judicial resolution of an inverse condemnation claim. 2 The two exceptions to the "strict liability rule" recognized in Albers were circumstances where the urgency or importance of the government conduct was so overriding that public policy advised against holding the government liable in inverse condemnation absent fault. ( Holtz , supra , 3 Cal.3d at pp. 304-305, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ; Bunch , supra , 15 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 , 935

2019That question is not in dispute here, so we need not decide in this case whether a section 1260.040 motion is a proper way to seek judicial resolution of an inverse condemnation claim. 2 The two exceptions to the "strict liability rule" recognized in Albers were circumstances where the urgency or importance of the government conduct was so overriding that public policy advised against holding the government liable in inverse condemnation absent fault. ( Holtz , supra , 3 Cal.3d at pp. 304-305, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ; Bunch , supra , 15 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 , 935

2017In that case, the City also argued that " 'a tree is not a work of public improvement that is the proper subject of an inverse condemnation action.' " ( City of Pasadena , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231 , 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The trial court denied the City's motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to send the claim to trial because a trier of fact could find the subject tree was a public improvement to support *928 an inverse condemnation claim. ( Id . at p. 1232, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The City filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling, which wa

2017In that case, the City also argued that " 'a tree is not a work of public improvement that is the proper subject of an inverse condemnation action.' " ( City of Pasadena , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231 , 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The trial court denied the City's motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to send the claim to trial because a trier of fact could find the subject tree was a public improvement to support *928 an inverse condemnation claim. ( Id . at p. 1232, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The City filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling, which wa

2017Property owners cannot "convert that right" into an inverse condemnation claim by declining to pursue their proper remedy in mandate proceedings. ( Pfeiffer , at p. 78, 137 Cal.Rptr. 804 ; see Hensler v. City of Glendale , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 19 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ; Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914 , 941, 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 .) *478 Plaintiffs seek to distinguish these authorities.

2017Property owners cannot "convert that right" into an inverse condemnation claim by declining to pursue their proper remedy in mandate proceedings. ( Pfeiffer , at p. 78, 137 Cal.Rptr. 804 ; see Hensler v. City of Glendale , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 19 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ; Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914 , 941, 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 .) *478 Plaintiffs seek to distinguish these authorities.

2026They argue negligence may support an inverse condemnation claim when it is a “ ‘deliberate act carrying with it the purpose of fulfilling one or another of the public objects of the project as a whole,’ ” quoting Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, supra, 10 Cal.4th at page 382 , italics omitted.

2014California cases have stated or assumed from time immemorial that when physical injury is the incidental consequence of deliberate government action in furtherance of public purposes, the damaged or destroyed property has been appropriated for ‘public use,’ and the public has effectively exercised its entitlement to ‘use and enjoyment’ of the property with compensation. [Citations.]” (Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, supra, 10 Cal.4th at p. 415, fn. 7 , some italics added.) Accordingly, a public improvement for the purposes of an inverse condemnation claim involves (1) a deliberate action b

2002In Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 500 P.2d 1345 ], the court recognized an inverse condemnation claim for precondemnation damages.

2002In Klopping v. City of Whittier (1972) 8 Cal.3d 39 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 500 P.2d 1345 ], the court recognized an inverse condemnation claim for precondemnation damages.

2017(See Paterno , supra , 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 , 742, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ["So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed."].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 582 , disapproved on other grounds

2017(See Paterno , supra , 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 , 742, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ["So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed."].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 582 , disapproved on other grounds

2019That question is not in dispute here, so we need not decide in this case whether a section 1260.040 motion is a proper way to seek judicial resolution of an inverse condemnation claim. 2 The two exceptions to the "strict liability rule" recognized in Albers were circumstances where the urgency or importance of the government conduct was so overriding that public policy advised against holding the government liable in inverse condemnation absent fault. ( Holtz , supra , 3 Cal.3d at pp. 304-305, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ; Bunch , supra , 15 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 , 935

2019That question is not in dispute here, so we need not decide in this case whether a section 1260.040 motion is a proper way to seek judicial resolution of an inverse condemnation claim. 2 The two exceptions to the "strict liability rule" recognized in Albers were circumstances where the urgency or importance of the government conduct was so overriding that public policy advised against holding the government liable in inverse condemnation absent fault. ( Holtz , supra , 3 Cal.3d at pp. 304-305, 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ; Bunch , supra , 15 Cal.4th at pp. 440-441, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 89 , 935

2018Proc., § 367 ["[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest except as otherwise provided by statute"]; see Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793 , 796, 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ; Tepper v. Wilkins (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1198 , 1204, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 111 .) Ordinarily, in an inverse condemnation claim the real party is one with an ownership interest in the property damaged or taken.

2018Proc., § 367 ["[e]very action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest except as otherwise provided by statute"]; see Carsten v. Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793 , 796, 166 Cal.Rptr. 844 , 614 P.2d 276 ; Tepper v. Wilkins (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1198 , 1204, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 111 .) Ordinarily, in an inverse condemnation claim the real party is one with an ownership interest in the property damaged or taken.

2018(See Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110 , 119-120, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799 , 514 P.2d 111 ["[i]n order to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation, there must be an invasion or an appropriation of some valuable property right which the landlord possesses and the invasion or appropriation must directly and specially affect the landowner to his injury"]; see generally Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 , 760, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 [discussing owner of private property's right to assert inverse condemnation action].) However, multidwelling condominium proj

2018(See Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura (1973) 10 Cal.3d 110 , 119-120, 109 Cal.Rptr. 799 , 514 P.2d 111 ["[i]n order to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation, there must be an invasion or an appropriation of some valuable property right which the landlord possesses and the invasion or appropriation must directly and specially affect the landowner to his injury"]; see generally Yue v. City of Auburn (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 751 , 760, 4 Cal.Rptr.2d 653 [discussing owner of private property's right to assert inverse condemnation action].) However, multidwelling condominium proj

2017(See Paterno , supra , 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 , 742, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ["So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed."].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 582 , disapproved on other grounds

2017(See Paterno , supra , 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 , 742, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ["So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed."].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 582 , disapproved on other grounds

2017(See Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 , 139 P.3d 119 ( Regency ); City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 , 1234, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ( City of Pasadena ); Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212 , 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 ( Boxer ).) Only two of those opinions, Regency and City of Pasadena , discussed whether a city-owned tree qualifies as a work of public improvement for purposes of inverse condemnation. 12 *927 In Regency , the California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the

2017(See Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 , 139 P.3d 119 ( Regency ); City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 , 1234, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ( City of Pasadena ); Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212 , 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 ( Boxer ).) Only two of those opinions, Regency and City of Pasadena , discussed whether a city-owned tree qualifies as a work of public improvement for purposes of inverse condemnation. 12 *927 In Regency , the California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the

2017(See Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 , 139 P.3d 119 ( Regency ); City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 , 1234, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ( City of Pasadena ); Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212 , 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 ( Boxer ).) Only two of those opinions, Regency and City of Pasadena , discussed whether a city-owned tree qualifies as a work of public improvement for purposes of inverse condemnation. 12 *927 In Regency , the California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the

2017(See Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (2006) 39 Cal.4th 507 , 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 742 , 139 P.3d 119 ( Regency ); City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 , 1234, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 ( City of Pasadena ); Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1212 , 201 Cal.Rptr.3d 371 ( Boxer ).) Only two of those opinions, Regency and City of Pasadena , discussed whether a city-owned tree qualifies as a work of public improvement for purposes of inverse condemnation. 12 *927 In Regency , the California Supreme Court affirmed a judgment in favor of the

2019Belair addressed the unique problems of flood control litigation - arising in a distinctive context that bears *1109 only a limited relationship to our analysis of public improvements in other contexts - through an inverse condemnation claim related to levees that failed to protect an area historically subject to flooding. ( Belair , supra , 47 Cal.3d at pp. 555-557, 560, 253 Cal.Rptr. 693 , 764 P.2d 1070 .) We concluded that despite heavy rainstorms contributing to the flooding, the levee was still a substantial concurring cause of the damages because "the improvement failed to function as it

2019Belair addressed the unique problems of flood control litigation - arising in a distinctive context that bears *1109 only a limited relationship to our analysis of public improvements in other contexts - through an inverse condemnation claim related to levees that failed to protect an area historically subject to flooding. ( Belair , supra , 47 Cal.3d at pp. 555-557, 560, 253 Cal.Rptr. 693 , 764 P.2d 1070 .) We concluded that despite heavy rainstorms contributing to the flooding, the levee was still a substantial concurring cause of the damages because "the improvement failed to function as it

2024For example, in Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285 , the California Supreme Court reversed a judgment on the pleadings entered in favor of the defendant where the plaintiffs’ inverse condemnation claim was based on noxious gases emitted from a nearby 9 sewage treatment plant that allegedly made their property uninhabitable.

2022(Oliver, at pp. 529, 531–532.) 38 The court in Varjabedian found noxious gases emanating from a sewage plant/facility whose odors rendered plaintiffs’ adjacent property “untenantable for residential purposes” and caused plaintiffs to have physical symptoms such as burning eyes and nausea could give rise to an inverse condemnation claim. ( Varjabedian, supra, 20 Cal.3d at pp. 293, 297, 299.) Thus, the Varjabedian court held that plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity, via amendment of their pleadings if necessary, to demonstrate that their property suffered a direct, peculiar, and sub

2014(See Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 299, 304-306 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ] [the plaintiffs adequately stated an inverse condemnation claim based on damages from excavation connected with the construction of the defendant’s “rapid transit system”]; Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250, 255 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 398 P.2d 129 ] [liability for inverse condemnation found where the plaintiff’s damages were caused by the placement of dirt in connection with the construction of a road].) Here, the evidence presented by the City in support of its motion for summary

2014(See Holtz v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 296, 299, 304-306 [ 90 Cal.Rptr. 345 , 475 P.2d 441 ] [the plaintiffs adequately stated an inverse condemnation claim based on damages from excavation connected with the construction of the defendant’s “rapid transit system”]; Albers v. County of Los Angeles (1965) 62 Cal.2d 250, 255 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 398 P.2d 129 ] [liability for inverse condemnation found where the plaintiff’s damages were caused by the placement of dirt in connection with the construction of a road].) Here, the evidence presented by the City in support of its motion for summary

2017(See Paterno , supra , 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722 , 742, 122 Cal.Rptr.2d 38 ["So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed."].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan's of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , 194 Cal.Rptr. 582 , disapproved on other grounds

2017(See Paterno, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 87, 90 [distinguishing between a negligent government policy or plan and negligent conduct by government employees]; see also Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 742 [“So long as the entity has made the deliberate calculated decision to proceed with a course of conduct, in spite of a known risk, just compensation will be owed.”].) For example, in Pacific Bell and McMahan’s of Santa Monica v. City of Santa Monica (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 683 , disapproved on other grounds in Bunch v. Coachella Valley Water Dist. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 432,

2017In that case, the City also argued that " 'a tree is not a work of public improvement that is the proper subject of an inverse condemnation action.' " ( City of Pasadena , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231 , 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The trial court denied the City's motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to send the claim to trial because a trier of fact could find the subject tree was a public improvement to support *928 an inverse condemnation claim. ( Id . at p. 1232, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The City filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling, which wa

2017In that case, the City also argued that " 'a tree is not a work of public improvement that is the proper subject of an inverse condemnation action.' " ( City of Pasadena , supra , 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1231 , 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The trial court denied the City's motion, concluding there was sufficient evidence to send the claim to trial because a trier of fact could find the subject tree was a public improvement to support *928 an inverse condemnation claim. ( Id . at p. 1232, 176 Cal.Rptr.3d 422 .) The City filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the trial court's ruling, which wa

2004(Id. at pp. 1499-1500, fn. 8.) It bears noting that the proper administrative procedures were followed in the case Serra relies upon, Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n. (1987) 483 U.S. 825 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 677 , 107 S.Ct. 3141 ] (Nollan).

2004(Id. at pp. 1499-1500, fn. 8.) It bears noting that the proper administrative procedures were followed in the case Serra relies upon, Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n. (1987) 483 U.S. 825 [ 97 L.Ed.2d 677 , 107 S.Ct. 3141 ] (Nollan).

2022(Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 , 1548–1549 (Border Park).) 4.

2011(Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547 [ 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 259 ]; see, e.g., Reardon v. San Francisco (1885) 66 Cal. 492, 500 [ 6 P. 317 ] [compensable taking resulted when construction of sewer caused compaction of soil and damage to structures on plaintiffs’ adjacent property]; House v. L.

2022(Id. at pp. 365–367; see Oliver, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 .) Here, appellant’s allegations about respondents’ construction impairing access to the Bonaventure do not rise to the overpowering level of the burdens imposed upon, and alleged by, the plaintiffs in Varjabedian and Harding.

2022(Id. at pp. 365–367; see Oliver, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 .) Here, appellant’s allegations about respondents’ construction impairing access to the Bonaventure do not rise to the overpowering level of the burdens imposed upon, and alleged by, the plaintiffs in Varjabedian and Harding.

2018(See Windham, supra , 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174 , 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 [the Legislature intended "to allow associations to sue as real parties in interest for damage to common areas whether for breach of implied warranty or on any other theory of liability"].) At oral argument Metro narrowed its challenge to Sierra Palms's standing under section 5980, contending, because an inverse condemnation claim is rooted in article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, which refers to payment of *574 just compensation to the "owner" of private property taken for a public use, the Legislature is w

2018(See Windham, supra , 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1174 , 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 834 [the Legislature intended "to allow associations to sue as real parties in interest for damage to common areas whether for breach of implied warranty or on any other theory of liability"].) At oral argument Metro narrowed its challenge to Sierra Palms's standing under section 5980, contending, because an inverse condemnation claim is rooted in article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, which refers to payment of *574 just compensation to the "owner" of private property taken for a public use, the Legislature is w

2017Property owners cannot "convert that right" into an inverse condemnation claim by declining to pursue their proper remedy in mandate proceedings. ( Pfeiffer , at p. 78, 137 Cal.Rptr. 804 ; see Hensler v. City of Glendale , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 19 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ; Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914 , 941, 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 .) *478 Plaintiffs seek to distinguish these authorities.

2017Property owners cannot "convert that right" into an inverse condemnation claim by declining to pursue their proper remedy in mandate proceedings. ( Pfeiffer , at p. 78, 137 Cal.Rptr. 804 ; see Hensler v. City of Glendale , supra , 8 Cal.4th at p. 19 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244 , 876 P.2d 1043 ; Salton Bay Marina, Inc. v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 914 , 941, 218 Cal.Rptr. 839 .) *478 Plaintiffs seek to distinguish these authorities.