Hunton Andrews Kurth has long been recognized as a leading provider of legal services with respect to eminent domain and land use litigation.

Such disputes typically involve matters of public concern and often are controversial. They require lawyers who are sensitive to the public scrutiny associated with the exercise of the power to condemn and to regulate the use of private property, and thus are able to pursue a client's goals while minimizing the potential for negative publicity that could impact the client's short-term and long-term interests. Our team of lawyers draws on a wealth of experience representing both condemning authorities and property owners, enabling them to position their clients for the successful resolution of their condemnation, inverse condemnation and land use disputes. 

Over the past 20 years, the firm’s lawyers have represented public and private clients in connection with thousands of property acquisitions and hundreds of condemnation proceedings for a wide variety of projects, including acquisitions for: 

• Streets
• Parks
• Railroad lines
• Hydrocarbon pipelines
• Light rail lines
• Telecommunication facilities
• Sports venues
• Electric transmission lines
• Water, storm sewer and sanitary sewer lines
• Drainage and detention facilities

These representations have varied in scope from small single-parcel acquisitions to large multi-parcel projects, and they have involved matters resolved at all stages of the acquisition process—before the filing of condemnation proceedings, during the administrative phase of condemnation cases, on the courthouse steps, at trial and on appeal.

The firm also has served as counsel for various governmental bodies in a number of inverse condemnation proceedings, including cases involving takings claims based on flooding events, changes in access to properties as a result of public improvement projects and drilling regulations enacted to protect public water supplies.

In addition to their representation of condemning authorities, the firm's lawyers are often retained to represent landowners whose properties are being sought by public and private entities vested with the power of eminent domain. They have defended landowners in connection with a variety of acquisitions, such as takings for the construction and widening of highways, pipeline and power line projects, school purposes, airport expansion and a natural gas storage project. 

As a result of their representation of clients on both sides of the docket, Hunton Andrews Kurth lawyers have a comprehensive understanding of the considerations and priorities that influence the actions of condemning authorities and landowners. This broad perspective facilitates the identification of the legal, factual and strategic issues confronting our clients, allowing us to efficiently and effectively prepare them for and guide them through the litigation process. Our representation of both condemning authorities and landowners also lends credibility to our presentations in the courts in which we appear.

Although a large part of our practice involves condemnation and inverse condemnation matters, that is not all we do. The firm's lawyers also have represented clients in connection with numerous other matters involving governmental entities, including litigation relating to zoning and land use regulations, construction disputes and environmental issues.

Regardless of the nature of the controversy, we understand that proper due diligence is the key to our clients' success. We work hard to identify and address in advance the relevant factual and legal issues that will control the resolution of the dispute, putting our clients in the best position for a favorable outcome. As skilled trial advocates, our lawyers bring a practical, proven and strategic approach to the resolution of disputes involving public law issues.

Representative Projects

Condemnation

• Representation of governmental entities, including cities, counties and a transit authority, in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for the construction, widening and improvement of streets and highways.
• Representation of common carriers, gas utilities and FERC-regulated natural gas companies in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, carbon dioxide and products pipelines and related facilities.
• Representation of regional water authorities, municipal utility districts and a river authority in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for water transmission pipelines.
• Representation of transit authorities in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for light rail facilities.
• Representation of governmental entities and electric utilities in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for electric power lines.
• Representation of school districts in connection with the acquisition of property for school facilities.
• Representation of a railroad in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for rail lines and related facilities.
• Representation of a river authority in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for the improvement and expansion of a water canal system.
• Representation of an electric utility and a municipal power agency in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for rail spurs.
• Representation of governmental entities, including cities, water authorities, water districts and municipal utility districts, in connection with the acquisition of right-of-way for water distribution pipelines, sewer lines and drainage facilities.
• Representation of governmental entities in connection with the acquisition of land for water detention facilities.
• Representation of a city in connection with the acquisition of land for a basketball arena.
• Representation of a venue district in connection with the acquisition of land for a baseball stadium and parking garage.
• Representation of cities in connection with the acquisition of land for public parks.

Inverse Condemnation

• Defense of a transit authority against landowners’ claims that the construction and operation of light rail facilities resulted in the material and substantial impairment of access to the landowners’ adjoining properties.
• Defense of a transit authority against a claim that it had unlawfully fenced and denied access to a parking lot adjoining the claimant's property.
• Defense of a county in two proceedings in which large plaintiff groups alleged takings claims following the flooding of their homes.
• Defense of a city in two cases in which mineral owners alleged a regulatory taking of their mineral interests under and adjacent to Lake Houston.