Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
rezoning. JUDGMENT UPHOLDING COMPREHENSIVE REZONING AFFIRMED; TRIAL COURT’S JUDGMENT OTHERWISE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION; COSTS TO BE PAID BY PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY. 1 . We do not identify the property because its identity is of little importance in our resolution of the issues. 2 . Unless the text indicates otherwise, we shall or "the functional equivalent” of a "practical ouster of [the owner's] possession” could constitute a constitutional taking. -U.S. at-, 112 S.Ct. at 2892 (brackets in original). 11 . The Supreme Court has found that a regulation resulted in an unconstitutional taking on only six occasions, beginning with Pennsylvania Coal, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.Ct. 158. The cases include Lucas, — U.S. — , 112 S.Ct. 2886 ; Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing categorical taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land
B. holding that a regulation prohibiting a landowner from building houses on his beachfront property denied him all economically viable use of his land and therefore was a taking requiring compensation
C. holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property
D. holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking
E. holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.