In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987), a church sought compensation for an alleged regulatory taking after the County of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance prohibiting the building or rebuilding on land owned by the church because of flood concerns. The church alleged that the ordinance deprived it of all use of the affected property, requiring the county to provide just compensation. The California Court of Appeal rejected the church's claim under the authority of Agins v. City of Tiburon, 24 Cal. 3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, 157 Cal. Rptr. 372 (Cal. 1979), aff'd, 447 U.S. 255, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106, 100 S. Ct. 2138 (1980). In Agins, the California Supreme Court held that "compensation is not required until the challenged regulation or ordinance has been held excessive in an action for declaratory relief or a writ of mandamus and the government has nevertheless decided to continue the regulation in effect." First English, 482 U.S. at 308-09. The practical effect of the Agins rule was to hold that the "Fifth Amendment, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, did not require compensation as a remedy for 'temporary' regulatory takings--those regulatory takings which are ultimately invalidated by the courts." Id. at 310. The Court was previously unable to review the Agins rule because of concerns with finality: "Concerns with finality left us unable to reach the remedial question in the earlier cases where we have been asked to consider the rule of Agins. In each of those cases, we concluded either that regulations considered to be in issue by the state court did not effect a taking, or that the factual disputes yet to be resolved by state authorities might still lead to the conclusion that no taking had occurred." Id. at 311. The Court perceived no such barrier to an examination of the Agins rule in First English, given the California Court of Appeal's affirmance of the trial court's ruling that the church's claim that the ordinance denied it of all use of its property was irrelevant. Id. at 309. Accordingly, the Court was finally confronted with the narrow question of remedies posed by the application of the Agins rule: "The disposition of the case on these grounds isolates the remedial question for our consideration." Id. at 311. Thus, the issue before the Court in First English was whether a landowner who claims his property has been taken by a land-use regulation can recover damages for the time prior to the time the regulation is determined to constitute a taking. Id. at 306-07. The Court answered the question in the affirmative: "We merely hold that where the government's activities have already worked a taking of all use of property, no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period during which the taking was effective." Id. at 321.