Many of the cases we cover on this blog present unusual fact patterns and cutting-edge legal claims. But they may not present an accurate view of the typical cases that cross the desk of lawyers who have chosen this line of work, as much of the work of eminent domain and property lawyers involves issues such as access, street widening, parking, and the like.
For an example of that, look no further than today’s short opinion by the South Carolina Supreme Court holding that the loss of left turn access to the plaintiff’s property as a result of the State’s widening of a highway did not result in an inverse condemnation of property. Hilton Head Automotive LLC v. S.C. Dep’t of Transportation, No. 27026 (Aug. 15, 2011). The property owner claimed a physical take of its access easement.
The court concluded:
The gravamen of HHA’s claim is that its easements included a right to make an immediate left turn to and from Highway 278, and such right could not be infringed without just compensation. We disagree. As recognized in Hardin, a regulation or traffic control device preventing immediate left turns to or from one’s property does not result in a taking, provided it does not otherwise cause a material injury to the abutter’s easements of access. … The relevant inquiry, then, is whether the abutter has retained a reasonable means of access to and from abutting roads and the public road system.
The property owner could access the highway with only “minor inconvenience” by either making a right turn, or a U turn. Because it retained road access, its easments were not taken.
They may not involve the metaphysics of “judicial takings,” or the nuances of what qualfies as property,” but cases such as these are important, both to the property owners involved and to the eminent domain and condemnation lawyers who are privileged to represent them.