I'm not sure the 5th works either since they're not "taking" the property they're just restricting what you can do with it.
A legal technicality. Mere possession is perhaps the least significant part of ownership. The essence of a property right is that the owner gets to decide how the property will be used. Of course, others get to decide how their property is used, so whatever action you want to take has to satisfy the rights of everyone whose property is involved, not just your own. However, when some authority figure tells you that you aren't allowed to use your property in a way which would not infringe on anyone else's rights, they are misappropriating your rights as the property owner for themselves. That is a "taking", and if the impact to the value of the property to the owner is significant enough (50% for sure; perhaps even less) it should be treated as a form of confiscation of the property for public use.
To put this in the form of a reducto ad absurdum: One could restrict the use of property to the point where the nominal "owner's" only legal options are to leave the property to rot (while still paying property taxes and other fees on it) or "donate" it to the government. Legal semantics aside, how would that be any different from simply taking the property? Lesser restrictions are merely a difference of degree, not kind; a partial taking is still a taking.