[beerandt]

Not especially- because generally whenever zoning is enacted, the current land owner gets to decide the initial zone of their property.

And land that is already zoned can't be rezoned without the current property owners consent.

So the only thing restricted / "taken" here, is if the property owner wants a re-zoning and is denied.

Yeah, being forced into the system at all is arguably a violation of rights, but I don't think requiring the land to be used in a consistent way (of the owners initial choosing) is at all comparable to not being allowed to use the land.

The owner never consents to endangered species restrictions. For zoning they do.

[xxpor]

Even if that's generally true (which I doubt), it has nothing to do with the legal theory in which Euclidian zoning operates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_of_Euclid_v._Ambler_....

"The court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings."