This report discusses the fundamental issues in inverse condemnation as they apply to airport-related litigation. Inverse condemnation arises when the interference with property rights is perceived by airport authorities as being marginal and not requiring the payment of just compensation. If the property owner disagrees, he may go to court to recover the value of his property. In this case, the landowner institutes the action rather than the entity possessing the condemnation power. The issue of airport liability has two principal applications: zoning and nuisances. If restrictions on the use of property resulting from a zoning ordinance are less than substantial or temporary, they may be within the power of the state to control the use of the property for the general public welfare. A compensable taking interfers with the use of the property to the extent that it no longer has a reasonable and beneficial use. A nuisance in the legal context is defined as anything which annoys or disturbs a person in the free use, possession or enjoyment of his property, or which renders its use or physical occupation uncorportable. As a result of the decision in Batten v. United States, federal courts allowed for recovery in inverse condemnation only when there were frequent and low overflights; flights caused a reduction in market value of the property; and, the overflights directly involved the plaintiffs' airspace. The Thornburg-Martin rule concludes from both cases that direct invasion of property was not essential to recovery.

  • Corporate Authors:

    American Association of Airport Executives

    2029 K Street, NW
    Washington, DC  United States  20006
  • Authors:
    • Donovan, J M
  • Publication Date: 1977-1

Media Info

  • Pagination: p. 2-4
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00174013
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: American Association of Airport Executives
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: May 18 1978 12:00AM