What legal action have the Johnsons accused the town of after losing their liquor license?

The Johnsons have accused the town of inverse condemnation after losing their liquor license because inverse condemnation typically refers to a situation in which a property owner believes that their property has been effectively taken by the government through regulation or other means without just compensation. In this context, the Johnsons likely feel that losing their liquor license constitutes an infringement on their property rights or an undue burden imposed by the town's actions.

Inverse condemnation is particularly relevant when it involves actions that significantly reduce the value or use of property, as the Johnsons may argue that their ability to operate a business and generate income has been compromised by the town's decision. The legal framework for inverse condemnation allows them to seek compensation for what they perceive as an unfair loss due to governmental action, which aligns with their predicament of losing the liquor license.

The other options, such as adverse possession, zoning violation, and escheatment, do not fit the context of losing a liquor license. Adverse possession involves claiming ownership of land through continuous possession, zoning violation pertains to illegal land use regulations, and escheatment deals with property reverting to the state when an owner cannot be identified or has died without heirs. None of these directly address the issue of a business license being revoked or lost