Arizona
How Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel applies in Arizona: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law—Takings and Substantive Due Process.
Arizona follows a nuanced approach to takings under the Arizona Constitution, emphasizing broader protections for property owners. The state generally requires a balanced consideration of public interest and private property rights when analyzing takings claims.
Arizona’s approach to takings recognizes both physical and regulatory takings, consistent with federal standards while providing additional protections to property owners under Art. II, § 17 of the Arizona Constitution.
In Ark v. Johnson, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that zoning restrictions imposed by local government did not constitute a taking where reasonable uses remained available to the property owner.
The court held that the imposition of higher fees on developers was not a taking when justified by the public benefits derived from the fees.
In Bujalski, the court determined that a complete ban on a property’s use was a taking, requiring compensation as the regulation denied all economically viable uses.
Arizona's interpretation of takings aligns closely with federal standards articulated in cases like Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, particularly regarding economic impact and ability to use property. However, Arizona offers its property owners broader protections under state law compared to some federal rulings.
This topic is critical for the Arizona bar exam, as takings law frequently appears, and candidates should be familiar with both state and federal principles.