Also known as: government exaction · exactions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A demand by the government for conveyance of a property interest or payment of money as a condition for issuing a land-use permit. The demand triggers Takings Clause scrutiny unless it bears an essential nexus to legitimate governmental interests that would justify outright denial of the permit and is roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development.
Gregory Gates sought a permit to build a small retail store on his coastal lot. The city approved the permit only if Gates recorded a public beach-access easement across the entire parcel. Gates refused and sued. The condition effects a taking because the easement does not mitigate any impact caused by the store.
Griffin Industries applied to expand its warehouse. The agency refused the permit unless the company paid to improve wetlands miles away. Griffin sued after the denial. The monetary demand is subject to exactions review because refusal to issue the permit based on rejection of the condition constitutes a taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A developer sought a permit to add two stories to an existing office building. The city approved only if the owner dedicated a 20-foot strip along the rear lot line for a bike path. The owner refused and sued. The condition effects a taking because the city supplied no individualized determination that the path would mitigate traffic impacts caused by the added floors.
A homeowner applied for a permit to replace a single-family residence with a duplex. The county required payment of a $75,000 traffic-impact fee calculated for a 200-unit subdivision. The owner refused and sued. The monetary exaction fails rough proportionality because the fee bears no relation to the traffic generated by one additional dwelling unit.
A ranch owner requested a permit to build a barn. The county conditioned approval on granting a public trail easement across a distant portion of the property used for grazing. The owner refused and sued. The condition effects a taking because the demanded easement does not mitigate any impact the barn would cause.
A farmer sought a permit to construct an equipment shed. The agency refused to issue the permit after the farmer declined to pay for off-site wetland restoration. The farmer sued. Refusal to issue the permit because the applicant rejected the monetary demand triggers exactions scrutiny.
The government must demonstrate an essential nexus between the demanded interest and a legitimate purpose that would justify denying the permit outright. The condition must also mitigate impacts actually caused by the proposed development.
Yes. The standards extend to monetary exactions and to outright permit denials when an applicant refuses an unconstitutional condition. Refusal to issue the permit because the applicant rejects the demand triggers the same scrutiny.
The government bears the burden. It must supply individualized findings showing that the nature and extent of the demanded dedication or payment are roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the development.
…law frequently looked to the generality of a regulation of property. For example, in the case of so-called "developmental exactions," we have paid special attention to the risk that particular landowners might "b[e] singled out to bear the burden" of a broader problem not of his own making. Nollan , 483 U. S., at 835,…