Also known as:rough proportionalities · roughly proportional · rough proportionality test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An individualized determination required under the Takings Clause that a land-use exaction demanding dedication of property interests must bear a reasonable relationship in both nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development. The government bears the burden of making this showing with evidence rather than conclusory assertions.
Sources & Authorities· 1 primary source
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
Hornbooks
Course Outlines
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Store Expansion Exaction Dispute
Ronald Reed sought a permit to expand his hardware store by 40,000 square feet. The city conditioned approval on Reed dedicating a strip of land for a greenway and constructing a bike path. The city produced only general statements that the expansion would increase traffic and runoff. Reed challenged the conditions as an unconstitutional exaction. The court held that the city failed its burden because it supplied no individualized findings linking the scope of the demanded dedications to the specific impacts of Reed's project.
Wetlands Mitigation Fee Challenge
Roland Rhodes applied for a permit to build a home on his waterfront lot. The district required Rhodes to pay for offsite wetlands mitigation work on government land several miles away. Rhodes refused and sued after the permit was denied. The court ruled that the monetary exaction triggered the same scrutiny as land dedications and that the district had not shown the fee was roughly proportional to the incremental harm from Rhodes's single-home project.
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District570 U.S. 595 (2013)
Development Denial Jury Instruction
Rosalind Reed sued after the city repeatedly denied her final development plan for a large residential project. The jury was instructed only on whether the city's reasons for denial were legitimate. The court of appeals upheld a verdict for Reed but discussed rough proportionality in dicta. The Supreme Court held that the rough-proportionality test did not apply because the case involved outright denial rather than an exaction condition attached to permit approval.
City of Monterrey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterrey, Ltd.526 U.S. 687, 734 (1999)
District Drawing Challenge
Rajesh Rao sued state officials claiming that a congressional district was drawn to concentrate minority voters. The state defended the map as necessary to avoid diluting minority voting strength. The court applied strict scrutiny to the racial classification and did not invoke rough proportionality analysis. The decision turned on whether race was the predominant factor rather than on any balancing of burdens and impacts.
Shaw v. Reno509 U.S. 630 (1993)
Partisan Gerrymander Claim
Robert Rivera challenged a state legislative map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The state argued that the map reflected legitimate political considerations. The court held the claim nonjusticiable and did not apply any rough-proportionality standard. The analysis focused on whether manageable standards existed for adjudicating political fairness rather than on matching exactions to development impacts.
Davis v. Bandemer478 U.S. 109, 106 S. Ct. 2797, 92 L. Ed. 2d 85 (1986)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
5
What burden does the government carry under rough proportionality?+
The government must make an individualized determination supported by evidence that the nature and extent of the demanded dedication are roughly proportional to the projected impacts of the proposed development. Conclusory assertions or general studies are insufficient.
Supporting sources
Does rough proportionality apply only to dedications of land or also to monetary exactions?+
The requirement applies to both. When a permit condition demands either land or money, the government must still demonstrate an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the exaction and the development's impacts.
How does rough proportionality differ from the essential nexus requirement?+
Essential nexus asks whether the exaction advances a legitimate interest related to the development. Rough proportionality asks whether the scope and magnitude of the exaction are reasonably related in degree to the specific burdens the development will create.
Supporting sources
What happens if the city offers no individualized findings?+
The exaction fails the rough proportionality test. Without evidence tying the demanded dedication to the project's particular impacts, the condition constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
Supporting sources
Does rough proportionality require a precise mathematical calculation?+
No. The test demands only a reasonable relationship shown through some individualized determination. Exact equivalence is not required, but the government must still produce evidence rather than rely on general policy goals.
representation never can make out a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. Such districting might have both the intent and effect of "packing" members of the group so as to deprive…
to the effects of the proposed land use. The second is that allowing the government to impose exactions without satisfying Nollan and Dolan would enable it to evade the Takings Clause’s…
to its asserted interests. The Court of Appeals' discussion of
rough proportionality
, we conclude, was unnecessary to its decision to sustain the jury's verdict. Although the court stated that "[s]ignificant evidence supports Del Monte's claim that the City's actions were…
Constitutional LawIndividual rights · TakingsUBEFoundational