When an opinion starts off with “[t]his zoning/inverse condemnation case revolves around the availability of parking…” you kinda know, whatever the issues might be, that the court isn’t likely headed in a good direction for the claimant.
That’s exactly how the Supreme Court of South Carolina began The Gulfstream Cafe, Inc. v. Georgetown County, No. 28303 (Oct. 29, 2025).
The bottom line is what you might expect, given that opening. The court rejected the takings and due process claims by a restaurant located in a special development district that the County’s permitting another restaurant to set up nearby violated the first restaurant’s rights.
The essence of the takings claim is that Gulfstream Cafe (the first restaurant) has been there for quite a while, and has an easement to allow its diners to use certain parking spaces. For many years, things worked out: the adjacent building housed a marina business that attracted daytime customers. The Cafe’s customers mostly came in the evening. So there was not a lot of pressure on the parking situation.
But that all changed when the owner of the adjacent building tore it down, and proposed to replace the marina business with another restaurant. After some back and forth during which a jury confirmed that the Cafe indeed has an easement, the County adopted an ordinance which approved the plans for a second restaurant. The Cafe alleged this had a dramatic effect on its operations:
Council approved 3.0, which became Ordinance 2018-40. Construction was completed, and the new restaurant, The Quay, has a seating capacity of 110 patrons in 4,596 heated square feet. This seating capacity is the same as that of the former establishment, but The Quay can also accommodate unseated patrons outside the heated square footage area. Also, The Quay has attracted additional patrons to the PD during the evening hours, which has resulted in parking that was already scarce to become scarcer. Gulfstream contends this has had a devastating impact on its business, thus causing a drastic diminution in the value of its property.
Gulfstream sued Respondents, alleging Ordinance 2018-40 allows construction of a building that will result in the overburdening of the parking lot over which Gulfstream has an easement.
Slip op. at 3.
Trial ensued, after which the court resolved all claims (takings, due process, inter alia) in favor of the county.
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed. It resolved the substantive due process claim by (you guessed it) the rational basis standard of review:
The County had the discretion to formulate a parking plan furthering the objectives of the PD. The County’s decision to use only the heated square footage of the new restaurant to calculate the number of parking spaces needed may or may not have been the best decision. However, a court’s role is not to challenge the wisdom of the County’s decision or become a city planner when the County makes an arguably poor decision.
Slip op. at 7.
The takings claim fared no better. No categorical taking because the government action didn’t wipe out the Cafe’s economically beneficial uses. Slip op. at 8 (“There is no evidence Ordinance 2018-40 completely prevents Gulfstream from operating its restaurant.”).
And no Penn Central taking either: this was merely an adjustment of rights for the public good (character); while severe, the economic impact of the ordinance left the Cafe valued at worst at $89,000 (the appraiser’s testimony was based on the extraordinary assumption that the ordinance wiped out all parking, which the court noted it did not); and the Cafe did not have a reasonable expectation to use all of the parking lot when its easement gave it the right to only a portion of that lot. Thus, the court concluded:
Each consideration under the Penn Central test weighs against the finding of a taking. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in ruling Ordinance 2018-40 was not a taking.
Slip op. at 10.
The Gulfstream Café, Inc. v, Georgetown County, No. 28303 (S.C. Oct. 29, 2025)