Town's Exercise of Eminent Domain Authority Upheld by SJC

In a case of considerable interest to municipalities, the Supreme Judicial Court in Town of Nahant v. Northeastern University, decided September 3, 2026, declined to find that the Town acted in bad faith when it took a conservation easement after learning of a property owner’s plan to undertake a large building construction project.

Northeastern University, the property owner, contested the taking on the grounds that the Town had taken the interest in the land for the sole, bad-faith purpose of preventing the University from following through on its plan to construct a new, 55,000-square foot building on the land. The Town, owner of the abutting property already used for open space and recreation purposes, successfully contended that the taking was properly made for the public purpose of conservation, notwithstanding the effect of the taking on the Northeastern building project. While the Court acknowledged that in extreme circumstances, a town’s bad faith could invalidate a taking, this was not such a case.

The Court found that conservation of open space is clearly a public purpose as evidenced by the Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth. The Court refused to interrogate the intent of individual Town Meeting voters authorizing the taking and reiterated that legislative acts of Town Meeting are entitled to a presumption of validity. 

The Court found that the Town had evinced interest in the area for conservation purposes in the past; that the taking was in keeping with the Town’s past practice and approach to conservation, including the fact that the property was located within the Town’s Natural Resource Zoning District; and that the taking of a conservation easement would have the automatic and self-evident effect of achieving the public purpose of the taking, namely, protecting the land from development and conserving its natural values, in contrast with pretextual takings where a town clearly would not or could not follow through with the purported purpose of the taking. 

Northeastern’s argument that the taking was intended to benefit a private party because the Town had accepted private donations to fund the taking was equally unavailing. Where a public purpose existed, incidental benefits to private parties could not invalidate the taking. Finally, Northeastern argued that the taking violated public policy as embodied by the Dover Amendment’s protection of educational uses from zoning restrictions. The Court rejected this argument as well, because similar protections were not provided under the eminent domain statutes.