How To Prove A California Inverse Condemnation Claim

In California, a claim of Inverse Condemnation is defined as:
Inverse Condemnation is an action brought against the government by a landowner to obtain just compensation for a taking of property effected without a formal exercise of eminent domain
It simply means:
A party seeks government compensation for taking property or damaging it so extensively that it is effectively condemned.
There are 4 elements of the claim:
- Element 1. A public project caused injury or damage to property. A public project, like building a road or park, can lead to injury or damage to someone’s property, which may allow the property owner to claim compensation for the loss caused by the government’s actions.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The construction of the public highway resulted in significant flooding on my property, causing extensive damage to my landscaping and foundation.
* Heavy machinery used for the public project caused soil erosion, leading to the collapse of my backyard retaining wall.
* The public project altered the natural drainage patterns, resulting in water pooling on my property and damaging my home’s structure.
* Vibrations from the public construction activities cracked the walls of my house, leading to costly repairs and loss of property value.
* The installation of public utilities disrupted my property’s access, causing damage to my driveway and landscaping. - Element 2. The plaintiff owned the injured property. The plaintiff must prove they owned the property that was damaged or affected, showing that they had legal rights to it before claiming the government took it without compensation.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff purchased the property in question on January 15, 2010, and has held the title since that date.
* The plaintiff has consistently paid property taxes on the injured property, demonstrating ownership and responsibility.
* The plaintiff has made significant improvements to the property, including renovations and landscaping, further establishing their ownership.
* The property is registered in the plaintiff’s name with the local county assessor’s office, confirming their legal ownership.
* The plaintiff has maintained insurance on the property, which is a standard practice for property owners. - Element 3. The property was taken or damaged for a public use. This means that the government took or harmed your property for a public purpose, like building a road or park, without properly compensating you, which allows you to claim that you deserve payment for the loss or damage.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The property was located adjacent to a newly constructed public road, which was essential for improving traffic flow in the area.
* The government utilized a portion of the property to install utility lines that serve the surrounding community.
* The property was damaged during a public construction project aimed at expanding a nearby park for community use.
* The local government issued a notice indicating that the property would be used for a public transit station, impacting its value and usability.
* The property owner was informed that their land would be temporarily occupied for a public event, resulting in damage to the premises. - Element 4. The damage was substantially caused by an inherent risk presented by the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of the public improvement. This means that the harm was mainly due to a built-in danger created by how the public project was intentionally designed, built, or maintained, suggesting that the government may be responsible for the damage caused.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The public improvement was designed with inadequate drainage, leading to frequent flooding during heavy rainfall.
* The construction materials used in the public improvement were substandard, resulting in premature deterioration and structural failure.
* The maintenance protocols for the public improvement were insufficient, allowing for the accumulation of debris that obstructed proper function.
* The layout of the public improvement intentionally directed water flow towards adjacent properties, exacerbating erosion and damage.
* The design of the public improvement failed to account for known geological hazards in the area, increasing the risk of landslides.
(See City of Oroville v. Superior Court of Butte County, Case No. S243247.)
If you’re representing yourself in court and plan to assert a claim of Inverse Condemnation, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Our resources can help you navigate this complex process effectively.
Prove Your CA Inverse Condemnation Claim
U.S. Civil Cases Only