I think they meant 5th Amendment, the taking of property requires just compensation, and the taking can only be for a public use.
That does make a bit more sense, but still a stretch. Hardly anyone today would argue that zoning law (before AFH or after) violates the Fifth.
I have a very low regard for zoning law, but just saying, it's hopeless to argue it.
No, the Fourth Amendment reinforces the principle that a citizen should be secure in his home against unreasonable seizure. If the government can control the party to whom you make a home sale, they have effectively seized control of your property.
I believe that’s the pivot on which the article turns. The author could have done a better job of laying that out, for sure.