Can a public entity be held liable for inverse condemnation when it fails to prevent another party from causing damage to private property? This one is pretty simple: the answer is no.
In Youngsma v. City of Cypress, homeowners sued the City for inverse condemnation and public nuisance because the construction of a vehicle maintenance and repair facility on property near their homes caused significant damage. The homeowners claimed that a school district owned the property in question, and the City failed to hold any public hearings or approve of the proposed repair facility. The inverse condemnation claim was based on the City's knowledge of the school district's development plans, and therefore, the City owed the homeowners a duty "to either halt the inverse condemnation or provide compensation." In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal held that purported knowledge is not enough. The City did not damage the homeowners' property, and the City did not approve of or even review the school district's plans or proposed land use.
The homeowners' public nuisance claim was based on the City's purported failure to enforce its laws and abate a nuisance. The court held that this claim also failed as there was no "connecting element" between the City's conduct and the harm; the City, as a public entity, is "not liable for an injury caused by adopting or failing to adopt an enactment or by failing to enforce any law." (See Gov. Code, sec. 818.2.)
While this is an unpublished decision and the claims were poorly pled by the plaintiffs, it serves as a reminder on the limits of inverse condemnation liability. The court's holding could also potentially be extended to other inverse condemnation cases involving claims associated with a public entity's failure to act or failure to protect (such as from flooding or wildfires).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
