Home remodel violating floodplain ordinance did not result in inverse condemnation.

The article discusses two legal cases involving property disputes. In the first case, Spady successfully established adverse possession of 1.36 acres of land by demonstrating continuous, exclusive, and notorious use, despite the Engels' claims to the contrary. The court affirmed that Spady's physical alterations to the land, including a garage and landscaping, met the legal requirements for adverse possession. In the second case, Hoff challenged the City of Burlington's refusal to issue a certificate of occupancy for his home remodel, which was deemed a "substantial improvement" under floodplain ordinances. The court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that Hoff did not comply with the necessary regulations and had not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of his property. [Extracted from the article]