What legal claim have the Johnsons made against the town for stripping their liquor license?

The Johnsons' claim of inverse condemnation is appropriate in this context because inverse condemnation occurs when a government entity effectively takes private property without formally exercising its right of eminent domain. This claim arises when the government actions—such as stripping a liquor license—result in a significant loss of value or use of the property.

In this case, the loss of their liquor license could be seen as a taking that negatively impacts the business's viability, which is crucial for any legal challenge. By pursuing this claim, the Johnsons seek compensation for the value lost due to what they perceive as an unjust governmental action that affects their ability to operate their business effectively.

The other options placed in context illustrate different legal claims that are not applicable here. Constructive eviction pertains to a tenant's situation where the landlord makes the property uninhabitable, while adverse possession relates to claiming ownership of land through continuous possession without permission for a statutory period. A zoning dispute would involve challenges against the local government's zoning regulations but doesn’t specifically cover the issue of loss of a license. Thus, the nature of the Johnsons' claim aligns with inverse condemnation, making it the correct answer.