(a) If the defendant objects to a taking for future use, the burden of proof is as prescribed in this section.
§ 1240.230.Burden of Proof If Defendant Objects to Taking For Future Use
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 3. The Right to Take · Article 3. Future Use · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1240.230 assigns the burden of proof for a contested future-use taking, putting the defendant to the task of proving no reasonable probability of use within seven years unless the complaint already disclosed a later date, in which case the plaintiff must prove the taking satisfies Article 3's requirements.
Full Text of § 1240.230
(b) Unless the complaint states an estimated date of use that is not within seven years from the date the complaint is filed, the defendant has the burden of proof that there is no reasonable probability that the date of use will be within seven years from the date the complaint is filed.
(c) If the defendant proves that there is no reasonable probability that the date of use will be within seven years from the date the complaint is filed, or if the complaint states an estimated date of use that is not within seven years from the date the complaint is filed, the plaintiff has the burden of proof that a taking for future use satisfies the requirements of this article.
Plain-English Summary
When a defendant challenges a future-use taking, someone has to carry the burden of proving whether the seven-year timeline in § 1240.220 will be met. Section 1240.230 decides who.
The default puts that burden on the defendant. Unless the complaint already states an estimated date of use beyond seven years, the defendant has to prove there's no reasonable probability the property will be used within that window. That default reflects the fact that most future-use takings are filed with an expectation of use inside seven years, so the defendant is the one asking the court to find otherwise.
The burden flips once either of two things happens: the defendant succeeds in proving no reasonable probability of use within seven years, or the complaint itself already disclosed an estimated date beyond seven years under § 1240.220(b). At that point, the plaintiff has to prove the taking still satisfies Article 3's requirements, essentially, that the longer timeframe remains reasonable under the circumstances.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who has the burden of proof when a defendant objects to a future-use taking?
Ordinarily the defendant, who must prove there's no reasonable probability the property will be used within seven years of the complaint's filing.
When does the burden shift to the plaintiff?
Once the defendant proves there's no reasonable probability of use within seven years, or if the complaint already disclosed an estimated date of use beyond seven years, the plaintiff must then prove the taking satisfies Article 3's requirements.
Does disclosing a longer timeline in the complaint help or hurt the plaintiff?
It shifts the burden onto the plaintiff from the start, but it's still required whenever the plaintiff doesn't plan to use the property within seven years.
Amendment History
Added by Stats. 1975, Ch. 1275.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: burden of proof future use condemnation california