Final answer:
A county regulation that diminishes property value is not automatically a taking under the Fifth Amendment. For a regulation to be considered a taking, it must significantly reduce property value or eliminate its viable use, and the owner must be justly compensated if it is determined to be a taking.
Step-by-step explanation:
Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a county regulation that diminishes the value of property does not necessarily constitute a taking. A taking implies that the property is appropriated for public use with just compensation. However, if a regulation goes far enough in diminishing the value of a property or depriving the owner of all reasonable economically viable use of the property, it can be recognized as a 'regulatory taking' and the property owner might be entitled to compensation.
Court decisions have evolved over time in their interpretation of what constitutes a 'public use' under the Takings Clause. As evidenced by the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), economic development can sometimes qualify as a public use if it provides broad benefits to the community. Regarding just compensation, if a government action is determined to be a taking, the government must provide the property owner with a fair market value for their property.