Archive | Highest and Best Use

Condemning a Golf Club? Not So Fast – It’s Worth More Than You Think.

When a town condemns a country club to continue its use as a golf course, it may have bitten off more than the taxpayers can chew. The law in New York and elsewhere in our country is that the Constitution requires the payment of just compensation, It is the general rule that “just compensation” is the fair market value of the property at the date of the taking, Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of New York, 277 NY 452 (1938); County of Erie v Fridenberg, 221 NY… read more

Posted in Country Club, Golf Course, Highest and Best Use
Read more > 0

Creative Approaches to Solving Difficult Appraisal Problems

          We start any evaluation of a parcel which has been taken by the exercise of eminent domain by the application of the overriding principal of the concept of highest and best use.           The concept of highest and best use is well founded in appraisal practice.  Regardless of whether property has been condemned, in valuing any parcel of real estate an appraiser must make a highest and best use of the land analysis as though the property were vacant and as though it were improved.  This is an essential… read more

Posted in Highest and Best Use, Uncategorized, Unusual Land
Read more > 0

MUST A HIGHEST AND BEST USE BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE?

It is the general rule that “just compensation” is the fair market value of the property at the date of the taking, Matter of Board of Water Supply of City of New York, 277 NY 452 (1938); County of Erie v Fridenberg, 221 NY 389 (1917), and the fair market value is the price for which the property would sell if there was a willing buyer who was under no compulsion to buy and a willing seller who was under no compulsion to sell.  Keator v State of New York,… read more

Posted in Financial Feasibility, Highest and Best Use
Read more > 0

ANOTHER THING ABOUT MATTER OF TOWN OF OYSTER BAY v 55 MOTOR AVENUE COMPANY, LLC

In our last posted blog, we criticized the Second Department’s decision in the above case for confusing what is necessary to prove a reasonable probability of rezoning and the ability to develop land pursuant to a special permit. But there is another problem with the Appellate Division’s decision.  It held that although three parcels were physically contiguous and had unity of ownership, parcel 3 could not be considered as having unity of use because the claimant had entered into a ground lease for parcel 3 seventeen months before the vesting… read more

Posted in Highest and Best Use, Unity of Ownership, Valuation Free and Clear
Read more > 0

CAN GOVERNMENT DESIGNATE PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED AND RESTRICT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS?

The North Carolina Supreme Court held that the filing of a map which designates property for future highway acquisition and prohibits development in the interim is a taking.  Kirby v North Carolina Dept. of Trans., 368 N.C. 847 (2016). The Court held, “upon NCDOT’s recording of the highway corridor maps at issue here, the Map Act restricted plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to improve, develop, and subdivide their property for an unlimited period of time.  These restraints, coupled with their indefinite nature, constitute a taking of plaintiffs’ elemental property rights by eminent… read more

Posted in Highest and Best Use, Inverse Condemnation, Zoning
Read more > 0