Worth checking out: Northland Management & Constr., LLC v. City of Parkland, No. 25-2239 (Aug. 3, 2026), from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, hich affirmed the district court’s conclusion after a bench trial that the city had inversely condemned Northland’s property (under Missouri law) because the city denied a certificate of occupancy.
The city approved a subdivision plat and Northland began construction on one of the lots (Lot 9). “[B]ut the lot’s soil composition and steep backyard slope caused problems.” Slip op. at 2. The lot also contained a swale, and during the grading process to address the slope, Northland filled the swale.
The city didn’t like that, and told Northland “that it could not grade into the swale,” nor could it fill it. Slip op. at 3. The city gave Northland three options, one of which was to install a culvert. But “it did so at the wrong elevation–which prevented the culvert from reaching full capacity during heavy rain.” Id. “As a result of the new swale’s placement stormwater runoff was shared between Lot 9 and [an adjacent lot], rather than running across Lot 9 as it did prior to construction. Id.
Complaints from adjacent lot owners resulted in the city telling Northland to obtain grading permits. Northland said no because under the city’s code, a grading permit is not needed when property has been platted. Eventually, the city refused to issue a certificate of occupancy.
Northland sued, pressing a Missouri law inverse claim which that when “private property is damaged by a nuisance operated by an entity having the power of eminent domain,” it is considered a taking (or damaging). Slip op. at 5. Because the district court concluded that Northland’s grading of the lot was consistent with the usual practice in the city regarding swales as well as the ordinance which exempts platted property from needing to obtain grading permits, the judgment was not clearly erroneous:
The district court also found that Lot 9 is a portion of the Sixth Plat, which in turn is part of a larger subdivision. And because Northland’s grading accorded with the Sixth Plat, a permit was not required under Section 520’s exception for “grading [that] is a part of an approved subdivision development[.]” Parkville, Mo. Ord. No. 1206 § 3, 2-5-1990. On these facts, it was not clearly erroneous for the district court to find the City’s application of Section 520 unreasonable once the City understood that Lot 9’s grading complied with the Sixth Plat and accepted practice. See Miller, 371 S.W.3d at 61 (“[I]t is the failure to correct or discontinue an unreasonable use after notice that gives rise to a nuisance.”)[,]
Slip op. at 6.
Perhaps more interesting is the way the Eighth Circuit considered Northland’s class-of-one equal protection claim which argued that it was treated differently than a nearby owner of property on the same street (where the city didn’t demand he pull a grading permit). The court applied rational basis review, which in most cases presages the outcome. But here, the district court concluded “that the record showed no rational basis for the City’s actions.” Slip op. at 8. And here’s the interesting part: the court of appeals affirmed based on the lack of contrary evidence in the record. “We decline the City’s invitation to speculate on its behalf as to possible reasonable bases for its actions.” Id.
We like that, because much of the time, “rational basis” really means “conceivable basis,” especially when legislation is being reviewed. Here, however, the court conclude there must be a rational basis reflected in the record, and absent that, the city loses even rational basis review.
This wasn’t a 100% win for the property owner, however, because the Eighth Circuit found fault in the way the district court calculated damages and sent the case back down for a do-over on that issue.
Northland Management & Constr., LLC v. City of Parkville, No. 25-2239 (8th Cir. Aug. 3, 2026)