Of Course A Land Use Regulation That Fails to Substantially Advance Legitimate State Interests Results in a Regulatory Taking

In a 1980 case involving a facial challenge to a residential zoning ordinance, the US Supreme Court held that application of a general zoning law to a specific property affects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies the owner economically viable use of the land. The substantial advancement test has proven to be a robust standard that has been invoked over a range of land use disputes, and the court has spurned all efforts to reconsider its use as a takings criterion. Recent decisions confirm the continuing commitment to this test, despite ongoing objections to its application.