The Fifth Amendment''s Takings Clause requires the government to provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use, but distinguishing between a compensable taking and permissible regulation without payment remains complex. Physical appropriation of property clearly requires payment, but regulatory takings occur when government restrictions deprive owners of substantially all economically beneficial use without formally seizing the property. The Supreme Court established the Penn Central test in 1978 to evaluate regulatory takings using three factors: the regulation''s economic impact on the owner, how much it interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. A regulation that eliminates all economically beneficial use automatically requires compensation. However, Penn Central rejected the principle that banning noxious or harmful land uses never requires payment, and ruled it irrelevant that landmarks laws burden some owners more than others since ''legislation designed to promote the general welfare commonly burdens some more than others.'' State courts struggle applying this multi-factor test, making regulatory takings claims unpredictable. The framework attempts balancing property rights against government''s police power to regulate for public health, safety, and welfare.