The big buckets: the main “types” of inverse condemnation claims

1. Physical occupation or physical invasion (the clearest inverse condemnation)

These are the most straightforward cases because a physical intrusion is easy for judges and juries to understand. Examples include:
Government builds/installs something on private land (pipes, lines, equipment, structures).
Government activity causes repeated flooding or drainage intrusion onto your property (stormwater systems, roadway changes, canal operations, etc.).
Government action results in a permanent physical condition that destroys practical use of part of the property.

These claims tend to be powerful because courts treat physical invasions as the classic form of a compensable taking.

2. Regulatory takings (rules that go “too far”)

This is the most common “inverse condemnation” category in land-use disputes: the government doesn’t physically enter the land, but its regulation leaves the owner with no real use.

Florida Bar materials describe inverse condemnation here as a claim that a government action is so severe it becomes the equivalent of eminent domain and requires compensation.

Regulatory taking theories usually fall into:

A. Total (or near-total) deprivation of economic use (Lucas-style)
If a regulation deprives the owner of all (or substantially all) economically beneficial use, it can become a compensable taking—even if the government calls it “zoning,” “permitting,” or “planning.”

B. Partial regulatory takings (Penn Central balancing)
If some use remains, courts typically apply a balancing test (impact, expectations, character of government action). These cases are fact-heavy and expert-driven.

C. Exactions / conditions cases (permit “give me X or else”)
If the government conditions development approval on giving up property rights (easements, dedications, access changes), the issue can become an inverse condemnation claim depending on the facts and the constitutional standards that apply.

3. Temporary takings (including moratoriums and shutdown orders)

This is where government moratoriums belong.

A temporary taking happens when the government temporarily strips the owner of all (or substantially all) use, even if it later backs off or changes course. Florida Bar commentary discussing First English explains that when government action deprives a landowner of all use, compensation may be owed for the period the restriction was in place.

How moratoriums fit
A “moratorium” is usually pitched as a planning pause: “No permits while we study traffic / concurrency / safety / infrastructure.” The legal question becomes:
Did the moratorium deny all (or substantially all) viable use?
For how long?
Was it tied to a legitimate and reasonable governmental objective?

Florida Bar materials discuss the temporary takings concept in the moratoria/concurrency context and note how courts analyze whether “all use” was denied and whether the delay is extraordinary.

Bottom line: A moratorium can be “just planning” or it can cross the constitutional line into a compensable temporary taking—depending on the severity and duration.

4. Access takings (loss of reasonable access)

You can have an inverse condemnation claim when government action effectively destroys or materially impairs access to property in a way that rises to a compensable taking (not just inconvenience). Florida Bar materials list “elimination of access” as one example of successful claims in the inverse condemnation/regulatory taking space.

Practical barriers: ripeness, “final decision,” and exhaustion

Inverse condemnation claims often fail (or get delayed) because the case isn’t ripe. Florida Bar guidance notes owners typically must show:
A final decision on what the government will allow, and
Exhaustion of administrative remedies (with a possible “futility” exception in the right fact pattern).

This is why experienced handling matters: if you file too early, you can get bounced; if you wait too long, you can lose leverage or deadlines.

‍

Remedies and damages: what you can recover

Inverse condemnation is about compensation, not just “the government was wrong.”

Depending on the type of taking, damages can include:
Full compensation for the property interest taken (measured as of the taking date).
In temporary takings, compensation for the period of lost use (the “temporary” slice).
In some cases, related losses tied to the taking of a property right (access, easements, etc.), proven through valuation evidence.

(What exactly is recoverable can turn on the claim type—physical invasion vs regulatory vs access—and the valuation theory.)

‍

The Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act (Florida Statutes § 70.001)

Florida’s Harris Act is not inverse condemnation. It is a separate, statutory cause of action designed to provide relief when government action “inordinately burdens” property rights even if the action does not rise to a constitutional taking. The statute expressly states it is “separate and distinct” from takings law and provides for relief/compensation when a new law, rule, regulation, or ordinance unfairly affects real property.

Key points owners should understand:

1. What triggers Harris Act relief

If a governmental entity’s specific action inordinately burdens: an existing use of real property, or a vested right to a specific use, then the owner may be entitled to relief that can include compensation for the actual loss to fair market value caused by the government action.

2. Why Harris Act matters in “moratorium / land use delay” scenarios

Many moratorium or land-use restrictions don’t quite meet the constitutional “taking” threshold, but they still crush value and kill real-world plans. Harris Act is often the tool that fills that gap—sometimes providing settlement leverage where inverse condemnation is uncertain or slow.

Florida Bar commentary also recognizes that the Harris Act was intended to provide broader relief than inverse condemnation, though interpretation fights can make litigation expensive without settlement.

3. What the case is “about” in proof terms

A Harris Act claim is typically driven by valuation proof: fair market value with vs without the government action—because the statute frames compensation in terms of market value loss caused by the government’s action.

‍