Grounds for objection to the right to take, regardless of whether the plaintiff has adopted a resolution of necessity that satisfies the requirements of Article 2 (commencing with Section 1245.210) of Chapter 4, include:
§ 1250.360.Grounds Regardless of Whether Plaintiff Adopted Resolution
Title 7. Eminent Domain Law · Chapter 5. Commencement of Proceeding · Article 5. Objections to Right to Take · Enacted 1975 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceSection 1250.360 lists eight grounds for objecting to the government's right to take property that are available regardless of whether the plaintiff adopted a resolution of necessity, including that the purpose is not a public use, the taking is not intended, or the project won't happen within a reasonable time.
Full Text of § 1250.360
(a) The plaintiff is not authorized by statute to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose stated in the complaint.
(b) The stated purpose is not a public use.
(c) The plaintiff does not intend to devote the property described in the complaint to the stated purpose.
(d) There is no reasonable probability that the plaintiff will devote the described property to the stated purpose within (1) seven years, or (2) 10 years where the property is taken pursuant to the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, or (3) such longer period as is reasonable.
(e) The described property is not subject to acquisition by the power of eminent domain for the stated purpose.
(h) Any other ground provided by law.
Plain-English Summary
These grounds apply across the board, whether or not the plaintiff has adopted a resolution of necessity that would otherwise conclusively settle the underlying necessity questions. That makes § 1250.360 the backbone of a right-to-take challenge in nearly every condemnation case.
Several grounds go to whether this taking is legally authorized at all: that the plaintiff lacks statutory authority to condemn for the stated purpose, that the stated purpose is not a public use, or that the property is not even subject to eminent domain for that purpose. Others go to the plaintiff's real intentions and timeline: that the plaintiff does not intend to devote the property to the stated purpose, or that there is no reasonable probability the property will be put to that use within seven years — extended to ten years for certain federal highway projects, or longer where that is reasonable.
Two more grounds are specific to particular acquisition categories described elsewhere in this title: excess condemnation, condemnation for a compatible use, or condemnation for a more necessary public use, when the acquisition does not meet the special requirements those categories impose; and a defendant's right to continue an existing public use as a joint use rather than yield it entirely. A final catch-all preserves any other ground provided by law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do these objection grounds apply even if the plaintiff adopted a resolution of necessity?
Yes. Section 1250.360's grounds are available regardless of whether the plaintiff has adopted a resolution of necessity.
How long does the plaintiff have to put the property to the stated purpose?
Generally seven years, extended to ten years for property taken under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1973, or longer if that period is reasonable under the circumstances.
Can a defendant argue the taking is not really for a public use?
Yes, § 1250.360(b) lists that the stated purpose is not a public use as a ground for objection.
Is there a ground covering situations not specifically listed?
Yes, § 1250.360(h) allows objection on any other ground provided by law.
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: grounds to object eminent domain californiapublic use challenge condemnationreasonable probability of use eminent domain