Also known as: regulatory exaction · exactions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A condition attached to a land-use permit that requires a property owner to convey an interest in land or pay a sum of money to the government. The condition constitutes a taking unless it satisfies an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest that would justify denial of the permit and is roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Roger Ramirez sought a permit to construct a secure research facility on coastal property. The permitting authority approved the permit only if Roger granted a public trail easement along the bluff. The easement bore no connection to any access problems created by the facility itself. Because the demanded interest lacked an essential nexus to project impacts, the condition operated as an unconstitutional regulatory exaction.
Riverstone Manufacturing applied to expand its plant and offered to pay impact fees calibrated to traffic increases. The city refused the permit unless the company paid a much larger sum for unrelated park improvements. When the company declined, the city denied the permit. The refusal triggered scrutiny under the exactions doctrine because the monetary demand lacked the required nexus and proportionality.
Roland Rhodes owned two beachfront lots rendered unusable by a coastal regulation. The agency offered to issue a permit only if Roland conveyed a permanent public access easement across both parcels. The demand would have eliminated all economic use of the land. The condition therefore functioned as a regulatory exaction that effected a total taking.
Rachel Ramirez sought approval to enlarge a retail store. The city conditioned the permit on dedication of a strip for a public bike path far larger than any traffic increase the expansion would generate. No individualized findings linked the path's scope to the project's actual burdens. The oversized dedication operated as a regulatory exaction violating rough proportionality.
Roberto Reyes challenged a county requirement that he dedicate wetlands as a condition of a marina permit. Environmental groups intervened to defend the condition. The court examined whether the groups had standing to assert that the exaction mitigated project impacts. The dispute turned on whether the regulatory exaction satisfied constitutional standards.
Regina Robinson refused to purchase required insurance and faced an annual monetary charge collected through her tax return. She argued the charge was an unconstitutional regulatory exaction rather than a tax. The court analyzed whether the payment operated as a tax or as a penalty tied to conduct. Classification determined whether the exaction fell within Congress's taxing power.
A regulatory exaction is constitutional only if it satisfies an essential nexus between the demanded interest and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit. The exaction must also be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development. The government bears the burden of making individualized findings to establish proportionality.
Yes. The standards govern demands for money as well as dedications of real property. A government's refusal to issue a permit because the applicant rejects a monetary condition that lacks the required nexus or proportionality constitutes a taking subject to exactions scrutiny.
…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,…
…passage is even less than the intrusion resulting from the required dedication of a sidewalk in front of private residences, exactions
…petitioner's property for public use. The fact that the city characterizes the required dedications as "conditions" rather than "exactions
…to label this exaction a “penalty” rather than a “tax” is significant because the Affordable Care Act describes many other
…v. Rawlins , 662 P. 2d 888, 901-904 (Wyo. 1983) (holding that a fee to enhance parks, imposed as a permit condition, was a regulatory exaction
A permit condition becomes an unconstitutional regulatory exaction when it requires conveyance of a property interest or payment of money without an essential nexus to project impacts or without rough proportionality to those impacts. Generalized public benefits or blanket policies do not satisfy the nexus requirement.
The government bears the burden of showing that the nature and extent of the exaction are roughly proportional to the projected impact of the proposed development. The property owner need not disprove proportionality.