The zoning ordinance at issue requires frontage on a class V highway or better. "The evident purpose of [the frontage] requirement is to insure that a dwelling may be reached by the fire department, police department, and other agencies charged with the responsibility of protecting the public peace, safety and welfare." Trottier, 117 NH at 150, 370 A.2d 275 (quotation omitted). The ordinance thus advances a legitimate public purpose.
The plaintiff purchased the property knowing both of the ordinance’s frontage requirements and that the property lacked the required frontage. Thus, she purchased the hardship of which she now complains. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff had "few, if any, legitimate investment-backed expectations of development rights which rise to the level of constitutionally protected property rights," Claridge, 125 NH at 751, 485 A.2d 287, and applying the ordinance to her land did not constitute a taking. See Trottier, 117 N.H. at 151, 370 A.2d 275. As we explained in Claridge, 125 NH at 751, 485 A.2d 287, "The [government] cannot be guarantor, via inverse and [sic] condemnation proceedings, of the investment risks which people choose to take in the face of statutory or regulatory impediments."