Also known as: land use exactions · land-use exaction · land use exaction · exactions
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A governmental requirement that a landowner convey a property interest such as an easement to the public as a condition of receiving a development permit. The requirement constitutes a taking unless an essential nexus exists between the demanded interest and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit, and the exaction is roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development.
Lance Lee sought a permit to build a small retail store on his coastal parcel. The city approved the permit only if Lee granted a public beach access easement across the rear of the lot. Lee refused and sued, claiming the condition effected a taking. The demanded easement bore no relation to any impact the store would create, so the condition failed the essential nexus test and constituted an unconstitutional exaction.
Lila Lin applied for a permit to expand her warehouse. The agency refused to issue the permit after Lin declined to pay a large sum toward off-site flood control unrelated to her project. Lin sued, alleging an unconstitutional exaction. Because the monetary demand lacked the required nexus and proportionality, the refusal to issue the permit constituted a taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Layla Lane requested a permit to enlarge her hardware store. The city conditioned approval on Lane dedicating a twenty-foot strip along the entire frontage for a public greenway and bike path. Lane refused and challenged the condition. The city offered no individualized findings showing the dedication was roughly proportional to the store expansion's traffic or drainage effects, rendering the exaction unconstitutional.
Laura Lewis owned beachfront land she wished to develop into homes. After a new coastal regulation barred all construction, Lewis sued claiming a total taking. The regulation operated as a flat prohibition rather than a conditional permit demand, so the exactions doctrine did not apply and the claim proceeded under the total deprivation test instead.
Luna Lang sought permits to build a hotel complex. The city denied the permits after Lang refused to dedicate beachfront land for public access. Lang sued, alleging the denial effected a taking. The denial rested on conditions that lacked essential nexus to the project's impacts, triggering exactions scrutiny.
Leah Lamb challenged a city ordinance that imposed new height limits on all downtown buildings. The ordinance applied uniformly and did not condition any permit on dedication of property. Because no individualized exaction was demanded in exchange for a permit, the claim fell under the Penn Central framework rather than the exactions doctrine.
The government must demonstrate an essential nexus between the demanded property interest and a legitimate interest that would justify denying the permit outright. It must also show that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the impacts of the proposed development.
Yes. The Nollan and Dolan standards govern demands for money as well as dedications of real property. A permit denial based on refusal to pay an unsupported monetary exaction triggers the same constitutional scrutiny.
The condition constitutes a taking. The government may not leverage its permitting power to obtain a public benefit unrelated to the development's effects without paying just compensation.
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 proposed 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,…