Also known as: exaction cases · exactions case · exactions doctrine · Nollan/Dolan
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Decisions applying the Takings Clause to government demands for property interests or money as conditions of land-use permits. The doctrine requires an essential nexus between the demanded concession and a legitimate public interest that would justify outright denial of the permit, plus rough proportionality between the concession and the project's impacts.
Eva Espinosa applies for a stormwater permit to develop a retail site. The city approves the permit only if Eva funds construction of a sports complex several miles away. Eva refuses, and the city denies the permit. Because the demanded payment lacks a demonstrated connection to stormwater impacts from the site, the denial is subject to scrutiny for an unconstitutional exaction.
Edgewater Capital seeks approval to add stories to an office building. The city grants the permit only if Edgewater records a public access easement through its lobby. Edgewater refuses the condition. The easement does not mitigate any specific impact from the added height, so the condition triggers review as a potential taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Yes. The doctrine extends to monetary exactions. When a permitting authority conditions approval on payment of money and then denies the permit because the applicant refuses, the denial is subject to the same nexus and rough proportionality requirements that govern dedications of real property.
Supporting sources
Yes. A permit denial based on refusal to accept a condition that lacks the required nexus or proportionality is treated as a taking subject to heightened scrutiny. The doctrine is not limited to cases in which the permit is issued subject to the condition.
Supporting sources
The government must demonstrate an essential nexus between the condition and a legitimate public interest that would justify outright denial of the permit. It must also show that the condition is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development.
Supporting sources
An easement fails the nexus requirement when it does not directly mitigate a harm caused by the project. For example, a lateral access easement does not address blocked views or increased recreational demand when the easement supplies a new public walkway unrelated to those specific impacts.
Supporting sources