Under the standard from Agins v. Tiburon, a regulation constitutes a taking if:

Study for the AICP exam with the Planetizen AICP Test. Master concepts with multiple choice questions, hints, and explanations. Ace your exam!

The main idea here is regulatory takings: a government rule that goes too far can require compensation. Under Agins v. Tiburon, a regulation is treated as a taking in a straightforward, per se way when it eliminates all economically viable use of the property. In that situation, there’s no need to weigh public interests against private rights—the deprivation itself triggers the taking rule. The phrase in the option highlights that total loss of viable use is paired with a failure to advance a legitimate government objective; the central point for takings is the loss of all economically viable use.

That’s why this choice is the best answer: if the regulation leaves no economically productive use for the land, it’s a taking, regardless of intent or other public benefits. The other statements describe scenarios that don’t automatically constitute takings under this standard—merely reducing value still leaves some use, police-power regulations aimed at health or safety are generally permissible, and temporary deprivation does not automatically become a taking.