California erodes landowners’ right to protect their property and their ability to challenge government action

The Lynch family (the heirs of Barbara Lynch), and Thomas Frick own beachfront property in Encinitas, California. In 2010, a major storm swept through the area, destroying their protective seawall and damaging the stairway that leads from their blufftop home down to the beach. They sought permits from the California Coastal Commission to rebuild and repair the seawall and stairway. When the Commission denied the stairway permit and conditioned repair of the seawall on a 20-year expiration date, the Lynches accepted the permit under protest and PLF sued on the Lynches’ behalf. PLF argued that the Commission’s requirement that the Lynches endure a new permitting process or remove the seawall in 20 years violated their statutory and constitutional rights to protect their property from erosion and other natural hazards.

The trial court agreed with PLF that the construction could proceed under the city’s unconditioned permits that authorized the Lynches to rebuild the seawall and stairway in the same location and dimensions. But the Court of Appeal reversed and reinstated the Commission’s condition on the seawall and denial of the stairway permit. PLF successfully petitioned the California Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing that the trial court correctly held that the commission lacked authority to veto the reconstruction of a private stairway that was destroyed by a storm, and to place a 20 year expiration date on a new seawall permit.

The state high court’s decision, however, failed to reach the merits of these claims. Instead, relying on a theory that neither party advocated, the court ruled that the homeowners forfeited their right to challenge the permit conditions because they built their seawall during the litigation rather than waiting until all litigation concluded. Because the Lynches were deprived of an opportunity to argue this point, PLF filed a petition for rehearing.