Eminent Domain Laws by State (2026): Takings and Compensation

The Fifth Amendment lets government take private property only for a public use and only with payment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" (U.S. Const. amend. V). That clause is the federal floor. Each state writes its own condemnation procedure, deadlines, fee rules and valuation rules, and most states now have their own limits on takings that benefit private developers, many adopted after Kelo v. City of New London (2005), where the U.S. Supreme Court said nothing in its opinion "precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power."

This guide covers the federal rules first and then compares all 50 states and the District of Columbia. For disputes between neighbors over rights of way and prescriptive easements, see our guide to easement laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-21. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers government condemnation of real property, and condemnation by private companies to which a legislature has delegated the power (utilities, pipelines, railroads and common carriers), under federal law and the law of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Regulatory takings get one paragraph, and tax foreclosure is limited to the Tyler and Pung paragraph. Private easement disputes between neighbors, prescriptive easements and landlocked-property access are covered in our easement laws by state guide. Local ordinances are not covered.

Federal Eminent Domain Law

Federal law supplies the outer limits that every taking must meet, and it governs takings by the United States itself. State law fills in nearly everything else.

The Takings Clause

The Fifth Amendment's last clause reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Two separate requirements sit in that sentence. The taking must be for a public use, and the owner must receive just compensation.

When the government formally condemns property, the Supreme Court treats it as a physical taking. In Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139 (2021), the Court said: "The government commits a physical taking when it uses its power of eminent domain to formally condemn property."

Public use: Berman, Midkiff and Kelo

The Supreme Court has read "public use" broadly for decades.

• In Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), the Court said that "when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive," subject to specific constitutional limitations, and that a legislature may decide "that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy."
• In Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), it held that "where the exercise of the eminent domain power is rationally related to a conceivable public purpose, the Court has never held a compensated taking to be proscribed by the Public Use Clause."
• In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the Court upheld takings for a city's economic development plan: "Because that plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the public use requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

Kelo also restated a limit. The Court said "the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation," while a State may transfer property between private parties "if future 'use by the public' is the purpose of the taking."

The sentence that drove the state reforms came next: "We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose 'public use' requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline." The state-by-state section below shows how states used that room.

At the federal level, Executive Order 13406 (71 Fed. Reg. 36973, June 28, 2006) stated a policy of limiting takings by the Federal Government to situations "for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties." It is a policy for federal agencies, not a limit on state or local condemnors.

How the federal government condemns land

A federal officer authorized to acquire real estate for a public building or other public use may acquire it by condemnation "under judicial process," and the Attorney General must begin the proceeding within 30 days after receiving the officer's application (40 U.S.C. 3113).

Under the declaration of taking statute, once the government files a declaration and deposits its estimated compensation in court, title vests in the government, the land is condemned, and "the right to just compensation for the land vests in the persons entitled to the compensation" (40 U.S.C. 3114(b)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 governs the court case. The court tries all issues, including compensation, unless a federal statute creates a special tribunal, or, if none exists, a party demands a jury within the time to answer, "unless the court appoints a commission" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 71.1(h)(1)).

Suing the United States for a taking

The Tucker Act gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over "any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution" (28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1)). The Supreme Court described the Tucker Act in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. 180 (2019), as "the standard procedure for bringing such claims."

Knick also changed where claims against local governments can be brought. It overruled the rule that a takings plaintiff first had to litigate in state court, finding that "the state-litigation requirement imposes an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs" and "must be overruled."

Inverse condemnation against a state

Inverse condemnation is a lawsuit by an owner whose property was taken or damaged without a formal condemnation case. In Devillier v. Texas (2024), owners sued the State of Texas, and the Court wrote that on remand, "DeVillier and the other property owners should be permitted to pursue their claims under the Takings Clause through the cause of action available under Texas law." Each state's deadline for these suits is different; examples appear in the inverse condemnation section below.

Pipelines and the Natural Gas Act

The Natural Gas Act lets a company holding a federal certificate that cannot acquire a needed right-of-way by contract, or cannot agree with the owner on compensation, acquire it "by the exercise of the right of eminent domain in the district court of the United States for the district in which such property may be located, or in the State courts." Federal district courts have jurisdiction only "when the amount claimed by the owner of the property to be condemned exceeds $3,000" (15 U.S.C. 717f(h)).

In PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, 594 U.S. 482 (2021), the Court asked "whether the Federal Government can constitutionally confer on pipeline companies the authority to condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a State has an interest. We hold that it can."

How compensation is measured in those private pipeline condemnations is now before the Court. In Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc., No. 25-159, certiorari was granted on June 29, 2026, and argument is set for November 9, 2026. The question presented is: "In private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, should just compensation be determined by reference to state law?" The case is pending and has not been decided.

When an access right is itself a taking: Cedar Point

A regulation can take an easement without any condemnation case. In Cedar Point, a California rule gave union organizers access to farms "for three hours per day, 120 days per year," and the Court held that "The access regulation appropriates a right to invade the growers' property and therefore constitutes a per se physical taking." The Court added: "Whenever a regulation results in a physical appropriation of property, a per se taking has occurred, and Penn Central has no place." Regulatory takings beyond that point are outside this guide.

Tax foreclosure surplus: Tyler and Pung

In Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U.S. 631 (2023), the Court held that "Minnesota may not extinguish a property interest that it recognizes everywhere else to avoid paying just compensation when it is the one doing the taking." The Court later summarized Tyler as holding that the Takings Clause "requires the government to return any surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales, i. e., the difference between the sale price and the taxpayer's debt."

On June 23, 2026, Pung v. Isabella County, No. 25-95, addressed the measure of compensation after a tax sale: "We conclude that the proper baseline under the Takings Clause is the price obtained in a tax sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted in light of our country's history of tax sales." The Court also held that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause does not require the government "to return more than the surplus proceeds."

Permit conditions: Sheetz

In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024), the Court held that "The Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions."

The Uniform Relocation Act (federally funded projects only)

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4601 and following) applies to federal acquisitions and to state and local projects that use federal money. A state or local agency receiving federal assistance must give assurances that it will be guided by the federal acquisition policies "to the greatest extent practicable under State law" (42 U.S.C. 4655(a)), and that displaced people will receive relocation payments "as are required to be provided by a Federal agency" (42 U.S.C. 4630). A purely state-funded taking follows the state's own relocation law instead.

The federal acquisition policies (42 U.S.C. 4651) include:

• Appraisal first. The property "shall be appraised before the initiation of negotiations," and the owner may accompany the appraiser, with a waiver for low-value acquisitions (4651(2)). The regulation allows a waiver where the anticipated value is estimated at $15,000 or less, and the federal funding agency may approve waivers up to $35,000 when the owner is offered an appraisal, or up to $50,000 project by project (49 C.F.R. 24.102(c)(2)).
• A written offer of at least the appraisal. The agency must make a prompt offer, which "In no event shall" be "less than the agency's approved appraisal of the fair market value," with a written statement of the basis for it (4651(3)).
• No coercion. An agency may not "advance the time of condemnation, or defer negotiations or condemnation" or take "any other action coercive in nature, in order to compel an agreement on the price" (4651(7)).
• Payment before possession. No owner must surrender possession before the agency pays the agreed price or deposits at least its approved appraisal or the award in court (4651(4)).
• Ninety days' notice to move. The regulation states: "No lawful occupant shall be required to move unless he or she has received at least 90 days advance written notice of the earliest date by which he or she may be required to move" (49 C.F.R. 24.203(c)).

The relocation payment limits were raised by a Federal Highway Administration rule effective June 3, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 36908), which adjusted the statutory amounts using June 2023 CPI-U figures. Under 49 C.F.R. part 24 as amended by that rule:

The regulation lets the lead agency adjust these limits for the cost of living and inflation (49 C.F.R. 24.11(b)).

How the States Limit Takings After Kelo

The differences among the states show up when condemned property would end up with a private owner. Each state below links to its own page in the table further down; this section groups the states by the kind of limit their state page describes.

Broad limits on economic-development takings (30 states)

These states exclude economic development, or private-to-private transfers, from public use in general terms, by statute, constitution or court decision. Nearly all keep exceptions for utilities, common carriers and blight.

• Alabama (since 2005): no condemnation for nongovernmental retail, office, commercial, residential or industrial development or use; the bar does not apply to blight takings under redevelopment or urban renewal plans or to takings by or for utilities.
• Alaska (actions filed on or after October 3, 2006): no taking from one private person to transfer title to another for economic development, unless one of six listed exceptions applies; the legislature may still approve a restricted taking in a single-subject act.
• Arizona (Proposition 207): public use excludes "the public benefits of economic development"; utilities remain a public use, and courts decide public use regardless of any legislative assertion.
• Arkansas (Act 945 of 2021): the general eminent-domain chapter excludes takings for the economic benefit of the general public; blight remediation and abandoned-property resale are listed public uses.
• Colorado (2006): public use excludes a transfer to a private entity for economic development or tax revenue; a blight taking needs clear and convincing proof that it is necessary.
• Delaware: public use does not include generating revenue, tax base, employment or economic health through private owners; utilities, electric cooperatives, common carriers and qualifying blight removal are included, and qualifying DelDOT transportation acquisitions and DNREC, tax-ditch and tax-lagoon acquisitions are exempt.
• Florida: no taking to abate a public nuisance or for slum or blight; for petitions filed on or after January 2, 2007, no conveyance of condemned property to a private party except as a general law passed by three-fifths of each house provides, and the statute lists permitted uses such as common carriers and utilities.
• Georgia (since 2006): economic development is not a public use; roads, utilities and blight remedies remain, and counties and cities may condemn blighted property after a court blight determination.
• Idaho: no taking for a pretextual transfer to a private party or for economic development, with exceptions; urban renewal and housing-area takings need clear and convincing proof of three hazard conditions.
• Indiana (2006): economic development is not a public use, and a private-to-private transfer taking is allowed only on the chapter's conditions.
• Iowa (since 2006): public use does not mean economic development except as the definition specifically includes it, such as qualifying slum or blight acquisitions; agricultural land cannot be condemned for private development without the owner's consent, with listed carve-outs such as roads, state-supervised railways, airports and most utilities under the Iowa Utilities Commission.
• Kansas (since July 1, 2007): no taking to sell, lease or transfer property to a private entity except in six listed situations, such as utilities, pipelines and railroads to the extent the property is used for facilities necessary to provide service.
• Kentucky (2006): no condemnation for transfer to a private owner for economic development that benefits the public only indirectly; blight removal, utilities and common carriers remain public uses, and acquisitions financed by state road or federal highway funds are exempt.
• Louisiana (2006 amendments): the state and its subdivisions may not take property for predominant private use or for transfer to a private person, except as the constitution specifically authorizes, and economic development cannot count toward a public purpose. In 2026 the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a port's taking of land to lease to a private company for its exclusive use was not for a public purpose (Plaquemines Port Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Nguyen).
• Maine (2006, applying retroactively to June 23, 2005): no condemnation of farm, fishing or forest land, or land with homes or other structures, for private development, mainly for tax revenue, or for transfer to a private person or for-profit business; blight-plan and utility takings are excepted.
• Michigan (2006 constitutional amendment): public use excludes a transfer to a private entity for economic development or tax revenue; a taking for transfer to a private entity can qualify only under one of three public-attribute tests.
• Minnesota: public use is defined exclusively, and economic development benefits do not by themselves make a use public; blight, contamination, abandoned property and public nuisances remain public uses.
• Missouri: no taking for solely economic development purposes; eliminating blight is excluded from that definition, and farmland may not be declared blighted for eminent domain.
• Nebraska (2006): no taking primarily for an economic development purpose; exceptions include public, right-of-way, pipeline and transmission-line projects, utility or railroad use and blight takings of non-agricultural land.
• Nevada (2008 constitution): public use does not include the direct or indirect transfer of condemned property from one private party to another, and the government must prove public use. In 2024 the Nevada Supreme Court held that this does not stop an investor-owned utility from taking an easement for a natural gas pipeline.
• New Hampshire (2006 constitution): no taking to transfer property to another person for private development or other private use; the statute excludes economic development benefits from public use, except for utility and common-carrier acquisitions and incidental private use.
• North Dakota: economic development is not a public use, and property may not be taken for a private individual or entity unless necessary for a common carrier or utility business.
• Ohio (since 2007): public use generally excludes takings for a private commercial enterprise, economic development or revenue, with exceptions for utilities, common carriers, certain port authority occupants and property proved to be blighted.
• Oklahoma: taking property for economic development alone, not in connection with removing blighted property, is not a public use under the state constitution (Board of County Commissioners v. Lowery, 2006).
• Pennsylvania (Act 34 of 2006): no taking in order to use property for private enterprise, with listed exceptions, including utilities, railroads, common carriers, blight, abandoned property, roads, and an owner who consents or does not file or does not prevail on preliminary objections.
• South Carolina (2006 vote, ratified 2007): no condemnation for any purpose or benefit, including economic development, unless it is for public use; a blight exception lets the legislature allow condemned property to go to public or private use.
• Tennessee (rewritten 2024, narrowed 2025): public use excludes private use, the indirect benefits of private economic development and recreational facilities and parks, with exceptions for transportation, utilities, common carriers, housing-authority redevelopment (narrowed in 2025 to blighted property or property that is for public use), state parks and natural areas, brownfield projects and incidental private use.
• Texas: no taking to confer a private benefit, as a pretext, or for economic development (subject to a narrow slum and blight exception); transportation projects, utilities, common carrier pipelines and other listed purposes are carved out.
• Vermont: no governmental or private entity may take property primarily for economic development, unless under the urban renewal chapter; condemnation for transportation, public utility, public property, building, hospital and park, and water, drainage and waste disposal projects is not affected.
• Virginia (constitution): outside utility, common carrier and railroad takings, a taking is not for public use if its primary use is private gain, private benefit, private enterprise, jobs, tax revenue or economic development, except to eliminate a public nuisance on the property; the condemnor must prove public use with no presumption that it exists.

Narrower limits (16 states)

These states restrict particular condemnors, particular property, later transfers, or the procedure, rather than barring economic-development takings across the board.

• California (Proposition 99): an owner-occupied residence may not be taken to convey it to a private person, but the bar does not apply to public works and improvements (including utility and common-carrier projects), public health and safety and other listed purposes.
• Connecticut (property acquired on or after June 25, 2007): redevelopment and municipal development agencies may not take property for the primary purpose of increasing local tax revenue, and some takings need a two-thirds vote of the municipality's legislative body.
• Illinois: a taking for private ownership or control generally requires clear and convincing proof that it is primarily for the public's benefit and necessary for a public purpose; blight, utility and several listed project types follow other rules.
• Mississippi (Section 17A, 2011): property acquired by eminent domain may not be transferred to a private person or business for ten years, with exceptions for utilities, roads, common carriers and similar uses; it limits later transfers rather than banning economic-development takings, and public use is a judicial question.
• Montana: a condemnor must prove the use is one listed in the statute and that the taking is necessary; urban renewal takings are limited to statutory blight and may not be used to raise tax revenue.
• New Jersey: redevelopment of blighted areas is a public use, but property cannot be taken solely because it is not used optimally (Gallenthin, 2007); for areas designated after a 2013 law, a town may condemn only in a properly noticed Condemnation Redevelopment Area.
• New Mexico (effective June 15, 2007): eminent domain was removed from the Metropolitan Redevelopment Code and two redevelopment laws were repealed; other condemnors, such as pipeline companies, keep the powers their own statutes grant.
• North Carolina (2006): the purposes listed in the condemnation statute are the exclusive uses for which eminent domain is granted, and a redevelopment commission may condemn only a blighted parcel.
• Oregon: a public body may not condemn property used as a residence, business, farm or forest operation when it intends at that time to convey an interest to another private party, with exceptions for dangerous property and transportation and utility facilities; the bar does not bind private companies with condemnation power.
• Rhode Island (2008): takings for economic development need explicit authority, a plan adopted after notice, a hearing and a comment period, and approval by the council or the General Assembly, with exceptions for local redevelopment agencies and short partial takings; owners receive at least 150 percent of fair market value.
• South Dakota (2006): counties, municipalities and housing and redevelopment commissions may not condemn property for transfer to a private party or primarily to enhance tax revenue; there is no statewide bar on every condemnor and none in the constitution.
• Utah: a redevelopment agency may not use eminent domain except in listed situations, such as within an urban renewal project area after a development impediment determination.
• Washington: the constitution bars taking private property for private use, except private ways of necessity and certain drains, flumes and ditches; public use is a judicial question, and blighted property a county, city or town condemns may later be transferred for private uses.
• West Virginia (2006): for the State's general taking power, public use does not mean eminent domain primarily for private economic development; transfers to entities that themselves hold condemnation power are excepted, and urban renewal authorities may condemn only in slum or blighted areas.
• Wisconsin: listed condemnors may not condemn property that is not blighted if they intend to convey or lease it to a private entity, and a municipality may not take even blighted property outside its boundaries for that purpose.
• Wyoming: for takings under W.S. 1-26-801 only, public purpose excludes a public entity taking property to transfer it to another private party, except to protect public health and safety; utilities and pipeline companies condemn under other sections.

No general post-Kelo limit (5 jurisdictions)

• District of Columbia: the condemnation chapter allows takings for "any other authorized municipal use" and contains no economic-development bar; site-specific Council authorizations and a slum-and-blight acquisition route exist.
• Hawaii: neither the constitution nor the condemnation chapter bars economic-development takings; the Hawaii Supreme Court defers substantially to the government's stated purpose but has said courts should consider a pretext defense where there is evidence of pretext (County of Hawai'i v. C & J Coupe, 2008).
• Maryland: no general ban in the constitution or condemnation title, but the courts read the constitution to bar takings for purely private use, local urban-renewal takings are limited to slum or blighted areas, and a 2007 act requires a condemnor to file within 4 years of its specific authorization.
• Massachusetts: no post-Kelo limit in the eminent domain chapters; the Supreme Judicial Court has held that bad faith includes a taking made solely for an improper reason, even when the stated purpose is valid.
• New York: the Eminent Domain Procedure Law asks whether an acquisition will serve a public use, benefit or purpose, and the Court of Appeals gives deference to an agency's findings supporting a taking.

Can a Pipeline or Utility Company Use Eminent Domain?

Often yes. The state limits described above usually carve out utilities and common carriers, and several state statutes expressly give pipeline companies the power. Interstate natural gas pipelines can also condemn under the federal Natural Gas Act, as described above. The state pages show the details, and some states have moved in different directions:

• North Dakota lists carbon dioxide pipelines as an eminent-domain purpose and treats a carbon dioxide pipeline operating for the public for hire as a common carrier.
• South Dakota barred eminent domain in 2025 for any pipeline whose preponderant purpose is transporting carbon oxide.
• Oklahoma barred eminent domain from November 1, 2025 for siting or building wind, solar, battery storage, hydrogen or other renewable energy facilities on private property.
• Indiana pays 125 percent of fair market value for agricultural land and 150 percent for an owner-occupied residence taken for a carbon dioxide pipeline.
• Iowa limits a pipeline right-of-way generally to 75 feet and one acre in any one location plus station sites, unless the utilities commission approves more on a showing of need.
• West Virginia bars a pipeline or oil or gas tank within 100 feet of an occupied dwelling without consent, outside municipalities.
• Nevada's Supreme Court held in 2024 that the state's private-transfer bar does not stop an investor-owned utility from taking an easement for a natural gas pipeline.

How Just Compensation Is Decided in the States

The usual measure is fair market value. In a partial taking, states add damages to the land that remains, and many reduce those damages by benefits the project brings to the remainder; others do not. Ohio's constitution has a jury assess compensation without deduction for benefits and Mississippi does not reduce remainder damages for supposed project benefits, while South Carolina considers project benefits and North Dakota offsets benefits only when the state or a public corporation takes.

The valuation date varies. Examples from the state pages: the date the summons issues in Alaska and Hawaii, the date the complaint or petition is filed in Mississippi and North Carolina (generally also in Illinois), the date of trial or the date title passes, whichever comes first, in Florida, and the date of the taking in North Dakota.

Who sets the number also varies. Some states start with court-appointed commissioners or appraisers (Alabama, Kansas, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Texas among them), with a trial available after an objection or appeal. Others send the case straight to a jury: Florida uses a jury of 12, Arkansas a 12-person jury, and the District of Columbia a jury of five.

Extra payments for homes and family land

For most states, the state page shows no percentage premium for a home. These states pay a stated percentage above it for certain takings:

• Michigan: not less than 125 percent of fair market value when an individual's principal residence is taken, or when the taking leaves less land than the local zoning minimum lot size.
• Missouri (proceedings filed after December 31, 2006): the highest of fair market value, 125 percent for a homestead taking, or fair market value plus a 50 percent heritage value for property held in the same family for 50 or more years when the taking prevents use in substantially the same manner; a separate 150 percent rule applies to certain farmland taken by non-cooperative electrical corporations.
• Indiana: in takings under the 2006 private-transfer chapter, 150 percent of fair market value for residential property and 125 percent (or equal-acreage replacement land, if both sides agree) for agricultural land.
• Rhode Island: at least 150 percent of fair market value plus transfer and relocation costs in economic-development takings.
• Connecticut: 125 percent of the averaged appraisals, but only for takings under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 8-193 and condemnations under § 32-224 of property acquired on or after June 25, 2007, and on federally funded projects only to the extent federal law allows.

New Hampshire adds relocation and housing replacement expenses of up to 10 percent of the compensation when a utility takes an owner's home in certain substation or transmission-line cases. Ohio's statute uses a 125 percent figure, but as a trigger for capped fee shifting, not as a bonus.

Quick-Take: When the Condemnor Can Take Possession Before Trial

Many states let a condemnor take title or possession before compensation is finally set, once it deposits its estimate or an interim award. Examples from the state pages:

• Florida: listed public bodies, cooperatives, public utility corporations and companies other statutes authorize, such as natural gas companies, may use quick-take, and title vests on deposit; a defendant who does not request a hearing waives objections to the order of taking.
• Texas: after the special commissioners' award, the condemnor may take possession pending further litigation by paying or depositing the award (and, unless exempt, posting additional deposits or bonds).
• Alabama: an appeal does not keep the condemnor off the land if it pays the assessed damages into probate court with a bond in double that amount, or deposits the award and costs in circuit court.
• Kansas: title vests when the condemner pays the appraisers' award to the clerk.
• North Carolina: in Department of Transportation cases, title passes on filing of the complaint and declaration of taking with the deposit.
• Oregon: an owner who objects to a public condemner's immediate possession must file a written objection within 10 days after notice is served.

Where a state requires payment first, the rule can be strict. Iowa does not allow dispossession from a residence, its outbuildings, orchard or garden until damages are finally determined and paid, with a separate rule for state highway takings.

Will the Owner's Attorney Fees Be Paid?

Whether a condemnor pays the owner's lawyer depends on the state statute, and the statutes differ widely. Florida works differently: except as its statutes otherwise provide, the condemning authority pays the owner's attorney fees based on the benefits achieved, at 33 percent of the benefit up to $250,000, 25 percent of the portion between $250,000 and $1 million, and 20 percent above $1 million.

Fees when the award beats the offer

Many states shift fees when the final award beats the condemnor's offer or deposit by a set margin. Examples:

• Alaska: an award at least 10 percent larger than the amount deposited or the master's allowance appealed from (one of five listed situations).
• Arkansas: an award 20 percent or more above the written good-faith offer.
• Colorado: an award over $10,000 that equals or exceeds 130 percent of the last written offer made before filing.
• Iowa: a commission award over 110 percent of the agency's final offer, applied for before the final commission meeting adjourns.
• Michigan: an award above the good faith written offer, with fees capped at one-third of the difference.
• Minnesota: mandatory when the award is more than 40 percent above the last written offer, discretionary at 20 to 40 percent, and not available when the award is $25,000 or less.
• Nebraska: discretionary when an owner's appeal beats the appraisers' award by 15 percent.
• South Dakota: an award 20 percent greater than the final offer filed when trial starts, with a total award over $700.
• Washington: no written settlement offer at least 30 days before trial, or a judgment 10 percent or more above the highest written offer in effect then, unless the owner did not stipulate to possession after a written request.
• Wyoming: fair market value above 115 percent of the final offer, covering expenses after that offer.

Other formulas compare the result with something else. Utah measures against the owner's own last settlement offer (up to one-third of the difference, capped at $50,000 or $100,000). Delaware asks whether the award is closer to the owner's highest trial valuation than to the condemnor's pretrial offer. California awards fees if the court finds the condemnor's final offer unreasonable and the owner's final demand reasonable. Ohio's capped fees turn on an award above 125 percent of the offer, with exceptions for exigency, road and rail takings.

Fees mainly when the taking fails or is abandoned

In other states the main fee triggers are a condemnation that fails, is dismissed or is abandoned, or an owner's win in an inverse condemnation suit. Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina and Mississippi follow this pattern on their state pages, and Hawaii awards fees when a case is abandoned or discontinued or the property is not finally taken. Nevada's general rule is that each side pays its own fees, with an award to the owner on abandonment, and its constitution provides that the owner is never liable for the government's fees or costs.

Little or no fee shifting

West Virginia's condemnation chapter contains no provision awarding the owner attorney fees. In Massachusetts, the cost rules in the main condemnation chapter shift taxable costs, and neither section provides for attorney fees. Kentucky charges circuit court costs to the condemnor, but its Supreme Court has held that "all costs" in the dismissal provision does not include attorney fees. Virginia lets a court order certain costs and expert fees, but not attorney fees, when the award is 25 percent or more above the initial written offer, except when a utility or railroad takes less than a fee simple for under $10,000.

Buy-Back and Repurchase Rights

If the government condemns land and never uses it, some states give the former owner a chance to buy it back. The terms vary sharply:

• Price paid: Alabama offers unused land that is later sold at the price paid, less listed taxes, with 90 days to accept; Kentucky allows repurchase at the price paid if development does not start within 8 years; Texas allows repurchase at the price paid on listed grounds, including no actual progress within 10 years.
• Current value: New York's right of first refusal is at current fair market value and applies only to fee acquisitions where the project is abandoned; Ohio's is at appraised fair market value and ends after events including five years from the taking.
• Price plus interest: Virginia sets the price at the amount paid plus 6 percent annual interest plus improvements, never above fair market value; Oregon's formula for the whole property is the compensation and damages paid plus 7 percent a year.
• Long windows: Louisiana requires a first offer to the original owner or heir before a sale or lease within 30 years, with stated exceptions; Pennsylvania's offer-back runs 10 years for undeveloped property and 21 years for agricultural property.

Maryland's condemnation title, North Dakota's condemnation chapter and South Carolina's Eminent Domain Procedure Act contain no repurchase right. Short acceptance windows are common: 30 days in Montana, New Mexico, Oregon (for an offer of the entire parcel) and Tennessee (local governments), 60 days in Iowa and in Washington school district acquisitions.

Owner Deadlines and Waiver Traps

Condemnation deadlines are often far shorter than ordinary lawsuit deadlines, and missing one can end an objection. Examples from the state pages:

• Challenging the taking itself: 20 days to answer in Alaska and Delaware, 21 days in Virginia and the District of Columbia, 30 days in Nevada and Pennsylvania (preliminary objections), a separate action within 30 days in South Carolina, and 40 days from the jurisdictional offer in Wisconsin. In New York, review goes to the Appellate Division within 30 days after the condemnor publishes its findings, limited to issues raised at the hearing.
• Very short windows: 5 days in Delaware to move to set aside the commissioners' award, 5 days in Washington state condemnations to seek review of the public-use order, 10 days in Hawaii to raise public use after an immediate-possession order, and in Mississippi a motion to dismiss at least 5 days before the hearing.
• Appealing the award: 10 calendar days plus 3 for mailing from a special master's award in Georgia, 20 days in New Hampshire and New Jersey, 30 days in Alabama, Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska, and 40 days in Minnesota. In Texas, objections are due on or before the first Monday after the 20th day after the commissioners file their findings.
• Long or unusual windows: North Carolina gives 120 days to answer a Chapter 40A complaint and 12 months in Department of Transportation cases, but missing the deadline admits the deposit is just compensation. Massachusetts generally gives three years from vesting to petition for damages, and Rhode Island one year in state takings.

Withdrawing money can also waive defenses. In Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming, taking the condemnor's deposit or payment gives up every objection except the claim for more compensation. In Colorado, an owner who takes the award before an appeal is decided generally has the appeal dismissed as to that owner, and in Oregon withdrawing the compensation awarded waives an appeal. Several states, including Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Nevada, require an owner to repay any amount received above a later, lower award.

Some states also treat silence on pre-suit steps as a waiver. In Alabama, a condemnor's failure to follow the appraisal and offer rules is waived if the owner, exercising reasonable diligence, does not object; in Wyoming, an owner who does not respond to the initial written offer may lose the right to object to the condemnor's good faith.

Inverse Condemnation: When Property Is Taken Without a Case

When government takes or damages property without filing a condemnation case, the owner may sue for compensation. The deadline depends on the state. Examples: one year generally in Arizona, two years for claims against the State in Hawaii, 24 months from the taking or project completion in North Carolina, three years in Mississippi, New Mexico (against a public body) and Virginia, four years in Idaho, five years in Iowa, six years in North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont (ordinarily six years in New Jersey), 10 years in Missouri for real property, and 15 years in Kansas and Nevada.

Several states award the owner's fees after a successful inverse condemnation suit, including North Carolina and Delaware, and in Georgia and New Mexico on federally assisted projects. Hawaii's Supreme Court held in 2025 that attorneys' fees cannot be awarded against the State in an inverse condemnation suit.

Relocation Help Under State Law

On a federally assisted project, the federal caps above apply. On a project paid for only with state or local money, the state's own relocation law controls, and the figures differ. Examples from the state pages:

• Alabama (state agencies), Delaware, New Hampshire, North Carolina and North Dakota: replacement housing payments of up to $22,500 for an owner-occupant of at least 180 days, with conditions.
• Maryland: generally up to $45,000 for a displaced owner-occupant of at least 180 days, which the agency may exceed case by case.
• Massachusetts: moving costs plus up to $15,000 for a 180-day owner-occupant who buys a replacement within one year.
• Pennsylvania: up to $31,000 for a 90-day owner-occupant and up to $7,200 in rental assistance for a tenant.
• Wisconsin: owner-occupant replacement housing generally up to $25,000, more if needed for a comparable dwelling.
• Utah: reestablishment expenses capped at $75,000 since May 6, 2026, adjusted yearly from July 1, 2027.
• Minnesota pays relocation benefits under the federal act even without federal funding, and Illinois measures relocation costs under the federal act unless federal funds pay direct assistance.

Eminent Domain Laws by State: Comparison Table

Cells summarize each state page; follow the link for the statute, the exceptions and the full deadline list. "See state page" means the point is covered there or is not summarized here.

Related Pages

• Easement laws by state
• Squatters rights and adverse possession by state
• Property records by state
• Statute of limitations in the United States

This guide provides general legal information about federal and state eminent domain law, not legal advice. Condemnation cases turn on the statute that authorizes the taking, the condemnor, the deadlines in the notice served and the facts of each property. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in your state or the agency acquiring the property.

Last updated: 2026-10-21.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the government take my property in the United States?

Yes, if the taking is for a public use and the owner receives just compensation. The Fifth Amendment says private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." States then set their own procedures, deadlines and limits on what counts as a public use.

Can a state take property and give it to a private developer?

Under the federal Constitution, Kelo v. City of New London (2005) held that a taking for a city economic development plan met the public-use requirement, but Kelo said states may restrict their own takings power further. Thirty states now broadly exclude economic development or private-to-private transfers from public use, 16 have narrower limits, and five jurisdictions (D.C., Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York) have no general post-Kelo bar of that kind.

Can a pipeline company use eminent domain?

Often. A company holding a Natural Gas Act certificate that cannot buy a needed right-of-way by agreement may condemn it in federal or state court (15 U.S.C. 717f(h)), and PennEast (2021) held it can condemn necessary rights-of-way in which a state has an interest. State limits on private takings usually carve out utilities and common carriers, though South Dakota barred eminent domain in 2025 for pipelines whose preponderant purpose is carrying carbon oxide.

How is just compensation calculated?

The usual measure is fair market value, plus damages to the remaining land in a partial taking, sometimes reduced by project benefits. A few states pay more for certain takings, such as Michigan (not less than 125% for a principal residence), Missouri (125% for a homestead taking, or a heritage value for 50-year family land in some takings), Indiana and Rhode Island (150% in specified takings).

How long do I have to challenge an eminent domain taking?

It depends on the state and the condemnor, and the windows are often short: 20 days to answer in Alaska and Delaware, 21 days in Virginia, 30 days for preliminary objections in Pennsylvania, and 40 days from the jurisdictional offer in Wisconsin. Missing the deadline can waive objections to the taking. Each state page lists its deadlines.

Will the government pay my attorney fees in an eminent domain case?

Only where a statute says so. Some states pay fees when the award beats the offer by a set margin (for example 20% in Arkansas or 10% in Washington), others mainly when the taking fails or is abandoned, Florida pays on a benefits-achieved schedule, and West Virginia's condemnation chapter has no attorney-fee provision.

What relocation help is available when property is taken?

On federal and federally assisted projects, the Uniform Relocation Act applies: under 49 C.F.R. part 24 as amended effective June 3, 2024, a 90-day homeowner-occupant's replacement housing payment may not exceed $41,200 and a tenant's rental assistance may not exceed $9,570, with at least 90 days' written notice before a required move. Purely state-funded takings follow state relocation laws, which set different amounts.

What is inverse condemnation?

It is a lawsuit by an owner whose property was taken or damaged without a formal condemnation case. Claims against the United States go to the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, and claims against a state or local government follow that state's cause of action and deadline, which ranges from about one year in Arizona to 15 years in Kansas and Nevada.

Can I buy my land back if the government does not use it?

In some states. Examples: Kentucky allows repurchase at the price paid if development does not start within 8 years, Texas allows repurchase at the price paid on listed grounds including no actual progress within 10 years, and New York gives a right of first refusal at current value in limited cases. Maryland, North Dakota and South Carolina have no repurchase right in their main condemnation laws.

What did the Supreme Court decide in Pung v. Isabella County?

On June 23, 2026, the Court held that after a tax-foreclosure sale, the just-compensation baseline is the price obtained at the sale, at least when the sale is fairly conducted. Tyler v. Hennepin County (2023) had already held that the government must return surplus proceeds above the tax debt.