Printer Friendly

Reducing convenience of access not a compensable taking.

A change in a city's designation of a public access road on an owner's property from a two-way to a one-way street did not amount to a compensable taking of the owner's right to access his property according to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Three roads, including Zion Circle, bound Alan C. Hanson's property in the City of Roswell. The property contains a commercial building with offices that Hanson rents to privately owned businesses. The property has two rear parking lots that are accessible from Zion Circle. In December 2000, the city designated Zion Circle as a one-way street. Hanson claimed that because of the change, drivers seeking access to the rear parking lots were forced to take a circuitous route that was difficult for the customers to find as well as time-consuming and tedious for the tenants. Hanson claimed that he lost tenants and rental income and suffered a reduction in the market value of his property as a result of the change. Hanson sued the city for damages for inverse condemnation. The trial court ruled for the city, and Hanson appealed.

On appeal, Hanson argued that his property was uniquely affected by the city's action and that his damage was different from that suffered by the general public. The court said that the city made no physical changes to Zion Circle, nor did it prohibit traffic on the street. Moreover, the change to the flow of traffic did not prevent access to the property from Zion Circle; it merely made it less convenient. The court found that since the change in traffic pattern did not interfere with Hanson's ingress and egress to his property, he had lost no property tight. The trial court's decision was affirmed.

Hanson v. City of Roswell

Court of Appeals of Georgia

July 14, 2003

Reconsideration Denied

August 12, 2003

(AJ/06/Spg.04-$10)
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Appraisal Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:cases in brief; property valuation
Publication:Appraisal Journal
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U5GA
Date:Mar 22, 2004
Words:312
Previous Article:Medical clinics providing occasional free care are not exempt from property tax.
Next Article:Donation does not invalidate rezoning.
Topics:


Related Articles
Valuing Business Goodwill Loss in Eminent Domain Cases.
Losses occurring to property before the actual date of taking are not compensable in direct condemnation actions. (Cases in Brief).
An option to purchase land was a compensable interest in condemnation proceedings. (Cases in Brief).
Future profits from unleased billboards not compensable in condemnation.
Restricted access due to condemnation not compensable.
Billboards and the legal and regulatory environment.
Measuring the financial impact of lot or home removal on home owners' associations.
Value implications of current trends in road access management.
Destruction of right of access is a compensable taking even if property is still economically viable.
Not an either/or: accurate property valuations are critical to the well-being of the housing market. The key to better valuations is blending the...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters