Defensible Moratoria: The Law Before and after the Tahoe-Sierra Decision

Abstract

Governments at all levels have used land use permitting and development moratoria as effective planning tools for decades. The U.S. Supreme Court's Tahoe-Sierra decision last year, upholding a 32-month moratorium on all development around portions of Lake Tahoe, has heightened interest in moratoria. The Tahoe-Sierra decision elicited comments from all sides, most seeming to believe that the law had changed. Although defensibility remains an issue, a definitive review of the cases before Tahoe-Sierra; an analysis of the Tahoe-Sierra decision itself; and a look at the cases decided since reveals that there has been little change in the law. The objective of this article is to illustrate how the law has evolved and to serve as a research tool for landowners, governmental officials, advocacy groups, and the courts.