Actually a leased space refers to any space where a tenant is allowed to use space in exchange for some consideration. A tenancy at will and a month to month tenancy still create a leasehold ergo, a leased space.
emminent domain could apply if the lease was non-terminable within a time period the city was willing to wait. If this was truly an indefinite lease, emminent domain could have come into play since if evicted, the city would be "taking" from the group and as such would be required to compensate the group for their loss. The most likely truth of the matter is this is not an indeterminable lease. At best we have heard it was a 10 year lease with an option to renew for a period of the tenants choosing at that point. We do not know what period the tenant renewed for. We do not know if it was able to be renewed for additional terms after the renewal period expired. We do not know if after the first renewal, if it allowed for additional renewals if it was renewed ever again and if so, for what period of time.
We do know that group was told when attempting to renew the lease was lost but it wasn't needed as the city had no intent of removing them as a tenant (at the time). So what it sounds like is the group, either through trust or ignorance of the law may have caused what might have been an indefinite lease into at best an annually renewable lease since any contract that cannot be performed within one years time must be in writing thereby requiring a lease in excess of one year must be in writing lest it be unenforceable.
We don't have a lot of info that would be required to make a reasonably dependable guess but what we do have makes it pretty clear the group is limited to annual lease renewals. It would be a rare lease where the lessor was not given the right to refuse to extend a lease upon expiration of any defined term.
So you put that all together and more than likely group will be moving out and more than likely will recieve no compensation for the building.

