Facts: An owner purchased property located within the vicinity of an airport. Under the county’s specific and general plan, all owners within the specified zone were required to sign an overflight easement, acknowledging the vicinity of the airport and granting an overflight easement to the airport. The owner did not sign the overflight easement when purchasing the property. The previous owner constructed improvements without obtaining building permits. The county required the owner to bring the improvements up to code and obtain a permit prior to doing so. As a condition of issuing the permit, the county required the owner to sign the overflight easement agreement. The owner refused.
Claim: The owner sought to obtain the building permits without signing the easement, claiming the consent requirement as a condition for obtaining a building permit is unconstitutional since it constitutes a taking without providing just compensation.
Counter claim: The county claimed the overflight easement did not constitute an unconstitutional taking since the easement was a uniform requirement of all property owners within that zone and was not imposed on the owner individually.
Holding: A California court of appeals held the overflight easement did not constitute a taking without just compensation since it was necessary a requirement applied to all owners of property within the airport zone. [Scott Powell v. County of Humboldt (January 21, 2014) _CA4th_]
Airspace is a federal domain, so why is a State Supreme Court ruling on a federal issue?
While the claim of taking a free right is interesting and provides a good argument, I just don’t see where the state has any right to rule where the area of interest is outside state purview, similar to oceans outside the 25 mile area of law, for example.