With such a corresponding tax, then zoning laws are consitutional.
This same reasoning applies to regulations that also commit a property owner to an expenditure or limitation on the use of the property.
Anti-smoking ordances, for example, that require a restaurant owner to install air cleaning equipment.
If the public wants to use the restaurant's owners private property, smoke free, then the pubic has to pay for such equipment to accomplish that goal.
Your point here would be a good one, except that most zoning laws do not cause a reduction of the value of the property in question.
If I own a piece of land and I can either subdivide it for residential use and sell it off for $200,000 or seek an industrial development permit that would allow me to sell it off for $1 million, it would seem that any zoning law prohibiting an industrial land use "costs" me $800,000. However, it should be pointed out that my surrounding property owners would actually incur combined "costs" far in excess of $800,000 (as a result of reduced residential property values) if I went ahead with that industrial development. If I had to pay this "cost" in addition to all the other higher costs of an industrial land use (higher water treatment and sewer costs, for example), then I would never even consider such a scenario in the first place.
The zoning law works both ways -- it protects one property owner at the same time it inhibits another. The reason these laws are in place is simple -- It is just not possible for a third party (the municipal government) to consider every possible impact that each and every development proposal might have on adjacent property owners. Keep in mind, as well, that the word "adjacent" can mean an awful lot of property owners (including many that are outside the jurisdiction of the approving authority) when the scope of a potential development is large.
Anti-smoking ordinances, for example, that require a restaurant owner to install air cleaning equipment. If the public wants to use the restaurant's owners private property, smoke free, then the pubic has to pay for such equipment to accomplish that goal.
I'm not sure if anti-smoking ordinances fall under zoning laws or health codes. If you want to make the case that health codes are an unjust infringement on the rights of property owners, then we can make a logical extension and apply this same argument to building codes, fire codes, etc. If a property owner is willing to accept the risk of having tenants live or work in buildings that are structurally unsound firetraps, then who is anyone to stop them?