In Lifetime Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (Jan. 27, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the city’s refusal to upzone a vacant parcel from “S-1” (which permits only parks, hospitals, churches, and other similar institutional uses) to a designation that would allow mixed-use development, was not a Penn Central taking.
The vacant property was, in the words, of the Sixth Circuit, “desirable real estate.” Slip op. at 2. The owner had operated a children’s home, but shut it down in 2010 and was looking to sell. The S-1 zoning was a problem as it limited the range of potential buyers. Changing the existing zoning would almost certainly make it more marketable.
The process for obtaining the city’s permission to rezone property looks pretty familiar, and seems much like what we’re familiar with in other jurisdictions; review by the Planning Commission, check for conformity with the comprehensive plan (Professor Haar would be proud), then a recommendation for action to the legislative body for actual approval (or not). One salient feature of the city’s charter, however, is that when deciding whether to rezone, the city council need not adhere to the comprehensive plan. Apparently it is only a Pirate’s Code guideline, and not actual rules (Professor Haar is frowning).
“Reluctant to let the UMCH lot sit vacant, Worthington sought to amend its Comprehensive Plan to guide development of the Property.” Slip op. at 3. Eventually, the city council approved a CP amendment which “envisioned a mixed-use development, including commercial and residential zones, with a strip of greenspace along the southern boundary of the parcel.” Id. Things were looking up!
This “intrigued” a developer, Lifestyle Communities, which presented a development proposal. Reaction, according to the court, “was mixed.” Eventually, Lifestyle agreed to purchase the property, with closing contingent on rezoning the property from S-1 to mixed-use. Eventually, the buyer and seller agreed to waive this contingency, and Lifestyle made the purchase.
Next, it filed the rezoning application. Its confidence was understandable. The rezoning seemed to be in conformity with the most recent amendment to the CP (although there was some disagreement with that). Flash forward a bit, and the city council said no to rezoning. While Lifestyle assembled a re-application, the council amended the CP to tighten up the greenspace requirement.
At that point, Lifestyle apparently saw the handwriting on the wall, and sued in federal court for a taking (inter alia). The district court granted summary judgment, concluding that it had not shown a Penn Central taking.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The preliminary fight centered around whether Lifestyle possessed a private property interest. Why was this a fight, you ask? After all, didn’t we recount above that Lifestyle purchased the property? It had, and that should have been enough. But the city apparently confused private takings clause property with due process property, arguing that Lifestyle had no property right to a future rezoning (a variation of the tired “you don’t have private property because you don’t have a vested right” argument). Thankfully, the court saw through that and concluded that indeed, it could assume that Lifestyle owns private property (or at least enough of an interest to address the merits of the case).
Here’s how the Sixth Circuit evaluated the Penn Central factors:
Economic impact: Denial of rezoning and leaving the property in S-1 has resulted in an up to 94% drop in economic value, which is “substantial.” Slip op. at 8. But this alone is not enough.
Expectations: Lifestyle seems to have known that the city might not rezone, and the city never promised that it would. “At best, circumstances show that broad compliance with the Comprehensive Plan would be necessary, but not sufficient, to achieve rezoning approval.” Slip op. at 8. And the amendment to the CP did not bind the city to approving rezoning which would be consistent with those amendments (as noted above the CP is more like guidelines than actual rules).
Character: Lifestyle fared no better. This is a rezoning situation, not a physical invasion or occupation. And refusing to rezone has a legitimate public purpose, and did not result in unreasonable delay. Slip op. at 10.
If this analysis leaves you a bit wanting, you are not alone. Yes, the Sixth Circuit’s approach is a lot like that of a lot of other courts when applying Penn Central‘s factors. But a 94% loss in value seems massive enough to support a verdict were a jury to conclude that on balance, this looked like the city was content to use its regulatory power to keep a vacant property vacant. Once again, it looks that courts are imposing their own bright-line rules about when an owner possesses enough of an expectation such that it is subject to modification by regulation.
But shouldn’t that decision be made by the trier of fact, and not as a matter of law?
Lifestyle Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington, No. 25-3048 (6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2026)