4.3.4.2. Unity of Ownership (Title).The larger parcel must also have unity of ownership—that is, there must be uniform control over the ownership and future of all property making up the larger parcel.382 Principles of fairness underlie the unity of ownership concept and form the basis of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Campbell v. United States: 

[I]f the land taken from plaintiff had belonged to another, or if it had not been deemed part and parcel of this estate, he would not have been entitled to anything on account of the diminution in value of his estate. It is only because of the taking of a part of his land that he became entitled to any damages resulting to the rest.383 

Thus, to allow landowners to receive compensation not only for their property but for diminution in value to land owned by another would be a windfall and an unfair enrichment rather than just compensation.384 

Historically, unity of ownership (or unity of title) was held to require all property comprising a single larger parcel to be owned to precisely the same extent (e.g., in fee simple) by precisely the same owner.385 But modern case law has recognized that at times, the strict traditional rule may ignore market realities that should in fairness be considered.386 As a result, the unity of ownership inquiry focuses on whether a single decision maker has actual legal control of all property at issue.387 Ultimately, unity of ownership turns on what “is more consistent with the goal of just compensation . . . .”388 Because unity of ownership raises not only factual but legal questions, appraisers must obtain legal instructions if they conclude that a single larger parcel exists when the ownership interests in all parts of the whole are not identical.389 This is one of many issues on which federal and state law may differ.390 

Federal courts have held that fairness compels consideration of market realities in determining unity of ownership. Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit found unity of title was satisfied for properties owned by three corporations because a single person served as the president, chairman of the board, and chief executive officer for all three entities.391 As one district court recently reasoned, a person with personal control of Parcel A and actual control of Parcel B as the sole owner of a corporation “would never negotiate against or attempt to undermine himself in a transaction. The relevant ‘economic realities of the marketplace simply do not produce those kind of results.’”392 Moreover, as another district court observed, “the buyer in the marketplace could readily acquire both parcels from the same operative vendors, exercising the same business judgment in the transaction.”393 

But “a group of individuals is significantly different than a single decision maker operating through a variety of corporate forms.”394 Fairness and market realities therefore dictate that unity of ownership does not exist when multiple decision makers are involved—that is, as one district court recently stated, “when the wishes of different individuals, and not a single individual wearing multiple hats, must be spanned to achieve unity of title.”395 As a result, unity of ownership has been ruled lacking when one tract was owned by one person and a second tract by a spouse,396 sibling,397 or adult child.398 Similarly, the existence of common or overlapping owners among multiple decision makers is not sufficient for unity of ownership. Thus, a court found unity of ownership was lacking among three tracts: one owned by one person, the second owned by the same person and a sibling, and the third owned by the same person and his spouse.399

Tracts that lack unity of ownership cannot be treated as a single larger parcel for just compensation purposes, regardless of whether they share an integrated or actual use. Accordingly, a district court recently found no unity of ownership among one tract owned by one person in fee, and a second tract owned by the same person and his parents, observing that “[d]espite the present harmony of the . . . family, either [the son] or his parents could prevent a transaction to acquire a present possessory interest in the [combined tracts].”400 The court ultimately concluded: 

Although both parents and son benefit from the uninterrupted use of the whole, the division of ownership between the . . . parents and their son has legal consequences in an eminent domain proceeding. The potentially conflicting interests between the parents’ use of their life estates and the son’s vested remainder make it impossible . . . to recognize a unity of title consistent with available case law.401