Also known as: Nollan · Nollan/Dolan
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional standard requiring an essential nexus and rough proportionality between a permit condition that demands dedication of property or payment of money and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit. The standard prevents governments from leveraging permitting power to obtain property interests unrelated to the specific burdens the proposed development would impose.
Seaboard National Bank sought a permit from the River County Flood Control Board to build a riverfront operations center. The Board conditioned approval on a four-million-dollar payment into a fund for levee upgrades in distant counties unrelated to the project. When Seaboard refused, the Board denied the permit. The denial based on rejection of the monetary demand subjects the condition to nexus scrutiny under the exactions doctrine.
Nalini Narula applied to the California Coastal Commission for permission to build a bungalow on her beachfront lot. The commission required her to grant a public easement across the property as a condition of approval. The easement bore no direct relation to any burden the bungalow would create on public beach access. The condition therefore fails the essential nexus requirement.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nathan Nguyen owned coastal lots rendered unusable by a state beachfront management statute. He challenged the statute as a taking because it eliminated all economic use of the land. The court distinguished the claim from exactions analysis because no permit condition was imposed in exchange for development approval.
Nicholas Nunez sought approval from the City of Monterrey to develop a parcel into a residential subdivision. The city conditioned the permit on dedication of land for a public park unrelated to traffic or density impacts from the project. After Nunez refused, the city denied the permit. The denial triggers exactions review because it rests on rejection of an unconnected condition.
Neville Norton purchased wetlands property subject to preexisting development restrictions. He applied for a permit to build a single-family home and the state denied the application. Norton may still challenge the denial under exactions standards because acquisition after the regulations took effect does not bar the claim.
Nina Nielsen applied to the City of Tigard for a permit to expand her hardware store and pave its parking lot. The city required dedication of a strip along Fanno Creek for a public greenway and an additional path for pedestrians and bicycles. The city offered no individualized findings showing the dedications were roughly proportional to the incremental stormwater and traffic effects of the expansion. The absence of such findings violates the proportionality component of the test.
Yes. The standards apply to permit denials and to demands for monetary exactions as well as dedications of real property. A government’s refusal to issue a permit because the applicant rejects conditions that lack the required nexus or proportionality constitutes a taking subject to scrutiny under the exactions doctrine.
The government must demonstrate that the condition relates directly to mitigating impacts caused by the proposed development. A preexisting municipal plan or independent objective that bears no connection to the specific burdens of the project fails the test.
Yes. The government bears the burden of showing that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development. Generalized findings or master-plan goals are insufficient without project-specific analysis.
No. The condition must bear an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit. Using the permitting process to secure an unrelated public benefit circumvents the just-compensation requirement.
…all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, he has suffered a taking. See Agins , supra , at 261; Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n , 483 U. S. 825, 834 (1987). We have never before held that the government may deprive a landowner of all economically beneficial use of his land without…