If you read up on the Border Patrol controversy they have claimed the unilateral right to enter any private property with 25 miles of an international border and conduct a search of that property, without a warrant. The only exception is that they need a warrant to search a private residence. So in theory if you have an office in San Francisco or Port Angeles or Mazama the Border Patrol can come in any time and search you. The courts haven't sorted this one out yet so good luck to you if armed border patrol agents want to search your detached garage.
No, of course not.
And there are a lot more recent injustices in the uncompensated taking of private property, consider:
(1) The taking of homes and farms owned by the Issei and Nisei at the start of WWII.
(2) The taking of land and water rights in the Owens Valley to provide water for Los Angeles.
(3) The forcible displacement of many people of many ethnicities when hydroelectric dams were constructed here on a large scale. For two very different cases consider the Wanapum Indians and the nice people who lived in Kettle Falls. In general your odds of getting a fair price for your property went up if you were (a) white, (b) wealthy, and (c) politically well-connected.
For a condemnation and eminent domain process to work, I would (at a bare minimum) expect:
(1) That accountable elected officials authorize it and set up a framework for it. In this case I would expect Congress to appropriate money for private land purchases and define cases where it is appropriate. So it would be reasonable to purchase an inholding (or condemn an inholding) at fair market price if it met certain transparent criteria set by elected officials.
(2) The landowner should get a fair and transparent hearing in court where the condemnation is approved and a fair market value is determined. Reasonable legal costs for the court process should be borne by the condemning agency.
I think the fair and reasonable solution is that the landowner be bought out at a fair market price.
David Bonn 
