---
name: preservation-law-summary
title: Historic Preservation Law Summary
description: Generates structured legal memoranda on historic preservation law covering NHPA, Penn Central takings analysis, designation processes, and state-local regulatory frameworks. Use when summarizing preservation jurisprudence, Section 106 review, landmark regulations, cultural resource protection, or takings challenges to preservation ordinances.
author: CaseMark
author_url: https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/preservation-law-summary
license: Apache-2.0
version: 0.1.0
execution_mode: open
jurisdiction: us
practice: real-estate
language: en
---

# Historic Preservation Law Summary

Produces a thematically organized legal memorandum synthesizing historic preservation statutes, case law, and regulatory frameworks across federal, state, and local levels.

## Prerequisites

Gather before drafting:

1. **Jurisdiction scope** — federal, specific state(s), or local municipality
2. **Audience** — developer, agency, preservation advocate, or litigation counsel
3. **Focus areas** — full survey or narrowed (e.g., takings only, designation process only)
4. **Uploaded documents** — case files, regulatory guidance, or ordinances to incorporate

## Quick Start

1. Confirm jurisdiction, audience, and focus areas
2. Draft executive overview (property rights vs. preservation interest, three-tier framework)
3. Build thematic sections synthesizing statutes + case law per topic
4. Format all citations in Bluebook; mark unverified citations `[VERIFY]`
5. Flag jurisdictional variations and unsettled law

## Memorandum Structure

Format as a professional legal memorandum with Bluebook citations.

### Executive Overview (1–2 paragraphs)

- Balance between property rights and public preservation interest
- Three-tier regulatory framework (federal → state → local)
- Key legal mechanisms: designation, review, enforcement

### Thematic Sections

Organize by topic, **not** chronologically. Each section synthesizes statutes + case law.

| Topic | Key Authorities | Coverage |
|-------|----------------|----------|
| Designation criteria & procedures | NHPA §106, state register statutes | Listing standards, landmark criteria, district designation |
| Regulatory authority | Local preservation ordinances | Alterations, demolitions, certificates of appropriateness |
| Takings challenges | *Penn Central v. NYC*, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) | Three-factor test, economic impact, investment-backed expectations |
| Tax incentives & economics | IRC §47, state credits | Federal 20% credit, state incentives, economic hardship |
| Enforcement & remedies | Varies by jurisdiction | Penalties, injunctive relief, citizen suits |
| Intersections | NEPA, Section 106, local zoning | Environmental review overlay, adaptive reuse |

### Case Treatment Format

For each significant case:

```
**[Case Name], [Citation]**
- Property: [type and significance]
- Challenge: [restriction at issue]
- Holding: [ruling]
- Reasoning: [key points]
- Impact: [practical implications]
```

### Jurisdictional Variations

- Federal preemption boundaries
- States with model preservation statutes (identify which)
- Local ordinance as primary regulatory vehicle
- Circuit splits or unresolved questions

### Evidentiary Standards

| Element | Standard |
|---------|----------|
| Historical significance | National Register criteria A–D |
| Architectural integrity | Seven aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association) |
| Economic hardship | Reasonable return analysis, maintenance cost evidence |
| Administrative appeals | Exhaust before judicial review in most jurisdictions |

### Emerging Trends (brief)

- Mid-century modern and recent-past preservation
- Culturally significant sites beyond traditional architecture
- Climate/sustainability integration with preservation

## Pitfalls

- **Overgeneralizing local rules** — flag state-by-state differences explicitly; never generalize from one jurisdiction
- **Binding vs. persuasive authority** — distinguish clearly when crossing jurisdictions
- **Unverified citations** — mark with `[VERIFY]`; cite all assertions to primary authority
- **Audience mismatch** — keep executive overview accessible to non-lawyers; use precise legal terminology in body
- **Neutrality** — acknowledge competing developer, agency, and advocate interests
