William T. Chisum

City's Development Restrictions Constituted Spot Zoning
William T. Chisum,Jeffrey L. Massey, January 24, 2012
A California Court of Appeal recently concluded that a city’s imposition of a one-dwelling-per- twenty-acre land use restriction on a 2.85 acre parcel of land located in the middle of a residential tract that allows for four dwellings per acre constituted spot zoning and a compensable taking...

No Inverse Condemnation Claim Where City Threatened But Did Not Proceed With Plans For Condemnation
William T. Chisum,Jon E. Goetz,Jeffrey L. Massey, December 28, 2011
A Court of Appeal recently held that a landowner failed to state a claim for inverse condemnation against a city that planned to take the landowner’s property but ultimately decided to not go forward with eminent domain proceedings. (Joffe v. City of Huntington Park (--- Cal.Rptr.3d ----,...

In An Eminent Domain Proceeding, Lenders’ Withdrawal Of Funds Without Objection From Property Owner Does Not Result In A Waiver Of Property Owner’s Rights
William T. Chisum,Bruce A. Scheidt, November 25, 2011
In Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC (--- P.3d ----, Cal., November 14, 2011), the California Supreme Court considered in an eminent domain proceeding whether a property owner’s right to contest the taking was waived. The public entity...