This article reviews a recently decided United States Supreme Court case which held that a thirty-two month moratorium on development did not constitute a taking per se. The Court, building on logic from other recent decisions, found that moratoria are an effective land use tool, which prevent inefficient land development and consequently lead to increased land value. This article analyzes the court’s decision to hold that moratoria are never takings per se, instead holding that a court shall perform an ad hoc analysis to determine a moratorium’s constitutionality.
John R. Nolon, 'Tahoe' Case: When Environmental Regulations Go 'Too Far', N.Y. L.J., June 19, 2002, at 5, available at http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/702/.