195.305
Compensation for restriction of use of real property due to land use
regulation. (1) If
a public entity enacts one or more land use regulations that restrict the
residential use of private real property or a farming or forest practice and
that reduce the fair market value of the property, then the owner of the
property shall be entitled to just compensation from the public entity that
enacted the land use regulation or regulations as provided in ORS 195.310 to
195.314.
(2) Just
compensation under ORS 195.310 to 195.314 shall be based on the reduction in
the fair market value of the property resulting from the land use regulation.
(3) Subsection
(1) of this section shall not apply to land use regulations that were enacted
prior to the claimant’s acquisition date or to land use regulations:
(a) That restrict
or prohibit activities commonly and historically recognized as public nuisances
under common law;
(b) That restrict
or prohibit activities for the protection of public health and safety;
(c) To the extent
the land use regulations are required to comply with federal law;
(d) That restrict
or prohibit the use of a property for the purpose of selling pornography or
performing nude dancing;
(e) That plan and
rezone land to an industrial zoning classification for inclusion within an
urban growth boundary; or
(f) That plan and
rezone land within an urban growth boundary to an industrial zoning
classification.
(4)(a) Subsection
(3)(a) of this section shall be construed narrowly in favor of granting just
compensation under this section. Nothing in subsection (3) of this section is
intended to affect or alter rights provided by the Oregon or United States
Constitution.
(b) Subsection
(3)(b) of this section does not apply to any farming or forest practice
regulation that is enacted after January 1, 2007, unless the primary purpose of
the regulation is the protection of human health and safety.
(c) Subsection
(3)(c) of this section does not apply to any farming or forest practice
regulation that is enacted after January 1, 2007, unless the public entity
enacting the regulation has no discretion under federal law to decline to enact
the regulation.
(5) A public
entity may adopt or apply procedures for the processing of claims under ORS
195.310 to 195.336.
(6) The public
entity that enacted the land use regulation that gives rise to a claim under
subsection (1) of this section shall provide just compensation as required
under ORS 195.310 to 195.336.
(7) A decision by
a public entity that an owner qualifies for just compensation under ORS 195.305
to 195.336 and sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9
and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections 2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon
Laws 2010, and a decision by a public entity on the nature and extent of that
compensation are not land use decisions.
(8) The remedies
created by ORS 195.305 to 195.336 and sections 5 to 11, chapter 424, Oregon
Laws 2007, sections 2 to 9 and 17, chapter 855, Oregon Laws 2009, and sections
2 to 7, chapter 8, Oregon Laws 2010, are in addition to any other remedy under
the Oregon or United States Constitution, and are not intended to modify or
replace any constitutional remedy.
(9) If any
portion or portions of this section are declared invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this section shall remain in
full force and effect. [Formerly 197.352; 2013 c.279 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2008–2024 · leading case:
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 30× “352(8) (2005), renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007) (internal citations omitted)).”
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “That proof is evaluated by the department in order to make a determination of the claim: “In addition to reviewing the claim, the department shall review the department’s record on the claim, the form required under subsection (3) of this section, any new material from the…”
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 9× “ORS 195.305 to 195.336 apply to claims, filed after June 28, 2007, for “just compensation” as a result of a public entity’s enactment of land use regulations that reduce the fair market value of private property.”
Hoekstre v. State Ex Rel. Dlcd, 278 P.3d 123 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “For convenience, we note that the pertinent text is compiled as a note following ORS 195.305 in the 2009 compilation of the Oregon Revised Statutes.”
Cyrus v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Deschutes, 202 P.3d 274 (Or. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “While petitioners' appeal was pending in this court, the voters passed Ballot Measure 49, which amended Measure 37 and added provisions that altered the claims and remedies available to landowners whose property values were adversely affected by land use regulations.”
Corey v. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 184 P.3d 1109 (Or. 2008).
“352 (2005), amended by Ballot Measure 49, Oregon Laws 2007, chapter 424, section 4, and renumbered as ORS 195.305. It required public entities that enact and enforce land use regulations to pay a landowner whose property is affected by any such regulations “just compensation,”…”
Davis v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 665 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Measure 37 required state and local governments to provide “just compensation” to a property owner when a governmental entity enacted or enforced a post-acquisition land use regulation that restricted the use of the property in ways that reduced its fair market value.”
State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Measure 37, however, was controversial. The potential disruptive effect of Measure 37 development, together with a lack of clarity in Measure 37’s provisions, led to calls for a revision of the measure.”
Biggerstaff v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 245 P.3d 688 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“Measure 37, however, was controversial. The potential disruptive effect of Measure 37 development, together with a lack of clarity in Measure 37’s provisions, led to calls for a revision of the measure.”
State Ex Rel. English v. Multnomah Cnty., 238 P.3d 980 (Or. 2010).
“352 (2005), renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007) (Measure 37 2 ), which authorized awards of “just compensation” to landowners if a government entity *421 enforced land use regulations that reduced the fair market value of the landowners’ property.”
Burke v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 251 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “352 (2005), amended by Oregon Laws 2007, chapter 424, section 4, renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007). It required public entities that enacted and enforced land use regulations to pay a landowner whose property value was adversely affected by any such regulations “just…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.305(1) — 4 cases
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“352(8) (2005), renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007) (internal citations omitted)).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.305(3) — 6 cases
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“352(8) (2005), renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007) (internal citations omitted)).”
Ericsson v. State, 285 P.3d 722 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“That proof is evaluated by the department in order to make a determination of the claim: “In addition to reviewing the claim, the department shall review the department’s record on the claim, the form required under subsection (3) of this section, any new material from the…”
Burke v. State Ex Rel. Dep't of Land Conservation & Dev., 251 P.3d 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“352 (2005), amended by Oregon Laws 2007, chapter 424, section 4, renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007). It required public entities that enacted and enforced land use regulations to pay a landowner whose property value was adversely affected by any such regulations “just…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.305(3)(a) — 1 case
Moore v. City of Eugene, 482 P.3d 190 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“352(8) (2005), renumbered as ORS 195.305 (2007) (internal citations omitted)).”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.305(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 195.305(7) — 4 cases
Maguire v. Clackamas Cnty., 279 P.3d 314 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
“ORS 195.305 to 195.336 apply to claims, filed after June 28, 2007, for “just compensation” as a result of a public entity’s enactment of land use regulations that reduce the fair market value of private property.”
State v. Crook Cnty., 256 P.3d 178 (Or. Ct. App. 2011).
“Measure 37, however, was controversial. The potential disruptive effect of Measure 37 development, together with a lack of clarity in Measure 37’s provisions, led to calls for a revision of the measure.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.