I personally agree with you, but the courts typically don't. I'm merely explaining the legal mechanism which began the restrictive creep. Over reaction to the f

I personally agree with you, but the courts typically don't. I'm merely explaining the legal mechanism which began the restrictive creep. Over reaction to the fires of 100+ years ago, plus some insurance industry lobbying. Some courts have ruled the way you describe, but more have ruled that it's not a legal taking, since no real-property rights are actually lost via conveyance (in the legal, non-moveable property sense). The value of those rights might be reduced, but the right is still yours; it wasn't a legal taking. They view it as being not much different than a bad neighbor bringing down property values. Personally, I don't think they should even be able to do it via the takings clause. If implemented at all, it should be strictly opt-in, similar to how zoning is initially adopted in new or annexed jurisdiction. (Also it's not "public benefit", it's "public use". It's often interpreted by courts as public benefit now, but that's something else I disagree with.)