Usually these types of things are argued as covert expropriations (“expropriatons déguisées” in French media). A municipal government causes financial damage to a land owner by preventing its use as previously legally outlined. Of course, this is true in most instances of recognized municipal rights being exercised over land owners (including historical building preservation, more restrictive height/density limits, natural preservation, …) so in order for this type of argument to be accepted in court it has to be pretty egregious and targeted towards specific land owners IIRC.
Edit: This type of legal argumentation and legal threats is what mostly stopped the city of Laval from being able to undo “greenfield towers” and other micro-zoning issues inherited from the Vaillancourt era. This is why Laval has a lot of new towers in incoherent places that have sprung up in the last decade or so. AquaBlu comes to mind:
One of the projects that was actually challenged immediately post Vaillancourt was the Marina Commodore, which was a very lengthy and costly affair for the city.