in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. In Lucas, the landowner was permanently prohibited from using his land. The Court ruled that was a taking, so he was due compensation.

In 1986, petitioner Lucas bought two residential lots on a South Carolina barrier island, intending to build single family homes such as those on the immediately adjacent parcels. At that time, Lucas's lots were not subject to the State's coastal zone building permit requirements. In 1988, however, the state legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, which barred Lucas from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his parcels. He filed suit against respondent state agency, contending that, even though the Act may have been a lawful exercise of the State's police power, the ban on construction deprived him of all "economically viable use" of his property and therefore effected a "taking" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that required the payment of just compensation. See, e. g., Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 261. The state trial court agreed, finding that the ban rendered Lucas's parcels "valueless," and entered an award exceeding $1.2 million. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held itself bound, in light of Lucas's failure to attack the Act's validity, to accept the legislature's "uncontested . . . findings" that new construction in the coastal zone threatened a valuable public resource. The court ruled that, under the Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, line of cases, when a regulation is designed to prevent "harmful or noxious uses" of property akin to public nuisances, no compensation is owing under the Takings Clause regardless of the regulation's effect on the property's value.

If the restriction is temporary, then the Court has ruled that isn't a taking and compensation isn't due (see Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council V. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency). In Washington state, if the rule is passed, then landowners will permanently be prohibited from developing the majority (65%) of their land. It sounds like the Lucas ruling would apply.