Sound pretty cut and dry that when he “bought” the land, he bought only certain rights to the land. Seems that someone who had already owned the land when this Act was passed would have a good argument that the state had seized their property. Perhaps whoever sold him the land does. But when he bought the land, he knew (or should have known) that the state reserved access rights to the beach.
This is not uncommon. States, or other entities, typically reserve rights to water that falls on property, access to cables or pipes beneath land, access to airspace or even wiring above ground, even rights to transport cattle across the land.
And had there been restricted beach access, he would have had to pay alot more for the property
The problem is that the state doesn’t hold an easement to the beach and instead is using a simple regulation to effect eminent domain without a hearing or compensation.
It is clearly a taking.
Let the state pay for an easement and let the state stop taxing the landowner on that portion of their property that they effectively don’t own.