The CO detector law requires a $20 battery operated CO detector. (Look under "COSTS".) That is insignificant. What LA wants to do is require supports to be reinforced or replaced which will cost thousands to do.
The Sprinkler system law "requires sprinklers to be installed in accordance with the sprinkler provisions applicable at the time the alteration permit was issued". In other words, property owners who don't alter their properties are exempt.
For these two laws, neither is a "taking" of existing property rights under the Fifth Amendment.
You make the common mistake of thinking that property is the land or building. It's the rights *associated with* the land or building. When the state takes away the owner's ability to use those rights, then the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. Who gets to use land or improvements thereupon does not matter; the fact that the building doesn't become a public one has zero relevance.
New laws will apply to new buildings or to improvements made to old ones (for permits to issue). There are lots and lots of old structures that remain the same because they haven't been improved. Unless the state wants to compensate the owner, it has no power to force the owner to act. If you look at those new laws in detail, you'll find that they do not impact the present owner's rights to use the property as they were before.
Buildings are not condemned all the time because of new building codes. They are condemned because the become unsafe under the existing ones.
I didn't say the City didn't have a stake in this. What I said is that its proposed solution (merely changing the building code) won't work. California politicians are infamous for waving magic wands (new laws) that turn out to be worth less than a straw found in a disposable cup in the gutter.
If the City wants to require a building upgrade AND pay for that upgrade, it can do it. If it wants it for free, then up to the Supreme Court we'll go. (If it makes it that far.)
The government has to give the property owner fair compensation if they use eminent domain. Here's a link at the top of the Google search: http://www.eminentdomainlaw.ne...
The fact that they do it through regulation rather than a transfer of title makes no difference.
Folks: the U.S. government (or any part thereof) can't just march in and force property owners to change their property. Government has to compensate the owners for any taking of a property-owner's rights. If the City of L.A. wants to march in and say "you don't get to use your office building because it isn't earthquake-proof", then the City has to buy the property at fair market value.
Are all politicians in California really this dumb? All they have to do is compile a list of buildings that the City deems to be unsafe, and the owners will be sufficiently encouraged to make the upgrades (or lose their present tenants.) No subsidies, no tax breaks, no cost to the city.