Also known as: Nollan/Dolan standard · Nollan-Dolan test · Nollan Dolan · Nollan/Dolan
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine under the Takings Clause that subjects land-use permit conditions to heightened scrutiny. The doctrine requires an essential nexus between the condition and a legitimate public interest that the development would otherwise burden, plus rough proportionality between the condition's burden and the project's actual impacts. The standards govern demands for real-property dedications, monetary exactions, and outright permit denials when an applicant refuses an invalid condition.
Noah Nakamura seeks a stormwater permit to develop a vacant lot into a retail store. The city conditions approval on his payment of several million dollars toward a distant sports complex unrelated to runoff from the site. When Nakamura refuses, the city denies the permit. The denial rests on rejection of a monetary demand lacking nexus and proportionality, so the Nollan-Dolan standard governs whether the refusal effects a taking.
Nora Nash applies for a grading permit to build soundstages on wetland-adjacent land. The city approves only if she pays $1.8 million for an off-site arts center miles away that serves citywide needs. Nash declines because the amount and location bear no relation to her project's localized impacts. The city denies the permit, placing the condition under Nollan-Dolan review for essential nexus and rough proportionality.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Yes. The doctrine covers permit denials that follow an applicant's refusal to accept an invalid exaction. The government's leverage in the permitting process triggers the same nexus and proportionality requirements whether the permit is denied or issued subject to the condition.
Supporting sources
Yes. The heightened scrutiny applies equally to monetary exactions. Governments cannot evade review simply by demanding cash instead of real-property interests. The nexus and rough-proportionality tests still control.
Supporting sources
Generally applicable fees imposed through legislative processes receive more deferential review. Heightened scrutiny is reserved for individualized, discretionary conditions that single out a particular applicant.
Supporting sources
The government must show that the exaction's nature and extent are roughly proportional to the development's actual impacts. Unsupported assertions or citywide goals unrelated to the specific project fail this requirement.
Supporting sources
…and not pursuant to an ordinance or rule of general applicability, the constitutionality of this fee is evaluated using the Nollan Dolan 'essential nexus' and 'rough proportionality' analysis." (Id. at p. 907 (cone. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).) A majority in Ehrlich further agreed that to the extent a development…