Agins v. City of Tiburon

The Agins (plaintiff) acquired five acres of open-space land in the City of Tiburon (the city) (defendant) and intended to use it for residential development. After the Agins acquired the land, the city was required by state law to prepare a general plan governing land use and development of open-space land. The city adopted two ordinances that modified existing zoning requirements that placed the Agins’ property in a residential planned development and open-space zoning district. Land zoned in the district was allowed to have one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses with a maximum of five single-family dwellings on the Agins’ five-acre tract. The Agins did not seek approval for the development of their land under the ordinances but instead filed a complaint against the city in the superior court. The Agins alleged that the city had taken their property without just compensation and sought damages for inverse condemnation and requested a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The city demurred, claiming that the Agins’ complaint failed to state a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained. The Agins appealed to the California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court held that the ordinances were not unconstitutional and that the Agins were not deprived of property without just compensation. The Agins appealed.