Notice on p. 840, the Court mentions that the trial court took the
position that the state's interest in protecting the beach/dune system
from erosion justified a total taking without compensation.
Basically, the state believed that it could regulate private land to
press it into public service as a kind of wave shock-absorber, to serve
as "a storm barrier which dissipates wave energy and contributes to
shoreline stability.' (p. 840 n. 17)
So is ordinary residential use of your land, similar to the use
neighbors make of their lands, a nuisance that may be enjoined without
compensation.
What does the Court say about this? --see bottom of p. 841-843.
See also Justice Rehnquist's dissent in Keystone (480 U.S. at 512:
"The nuisance exception to the taking guarantee," however, "is not coterminous with the police power itself," Penn Central Transportation, supra, at 145 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting), but is a narrow exception allowing the government to prevent "a misuse or illegal use." Curtin v. Benson, 222 U. S. 78, 86 (1911). It is not intended to allow "the prevention of a legal and essential use, an attribute of its ownership." Ibid.
