Also known as: nexus requirements · nexus
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An essential connection required between a government condition on a development permit and the impacts of the proposed development. The connection must be present for the condition to avoid classification as a taking under the Fifth Amendment. Absence of the connection subjects the exaction to scrutiny under the Nollan and Dolan standards.
Noreen Nguyen sought a permit to expand her retail store. The city conditioned approval on her dedicating a strip of land for a public greenway and bike path. The projected traffic increase from the expansion was modest. The city offered no individualized findings showing how the full dedication matched that impact.
Nora Nash applied to rebuild her beachfront home. The commission required her to grant a public easement across the property for beach access. The rebuild would not block any existing public views of the ocean. The demanded easement bore no direct relation to any visual impact caused by the project.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nolan Nunez sought a permit to develop commercial property. The agency refused the permit after he declined to pay a large sum for off-site public improvements. The payment demand lacked any demonstrated link to the specific effects of his project. The refusal triggered review under exactions doctrine.
Nicole Navarro purchased shares after a corporate statement. She later alleged the statement was misleading. The court examined whether a sufficient connection existed between the statement and her investment decision. Without that link her claim failed.
Neil Nair obtained a verdict against an insurer for bad faith. The jury imposed a large punitive award. The court required proof of a direct relationship between the insurer conduct and the harm to the plaintiff. The award was reduced when that relationship was not shown.
Neville Norton challenged a campaign finance disclosure rule. The government defended the rule by citing the need to reveal large contributions. The court assessed whether the required disclosure bore a substantial connection to preventing actual or apparent corruption. The rule survived only to the extent that connection held.
The government must show an essential connection between the demanded condition and a legitimate interest that would justify denying the permit outright. The connection must relate directly to mitigating impacts caused by the proposed development.
Supporting sources
Yes. The same nexus and proportionality standards govern demands for monetary exactions. A permit denial based on refusal to pay an unconnected sum triggers the same scrutiny.
Supporting sources
The government bears the burden. It must demonstrate that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the development.
Supporting sources
The condition constitutes a taking. The owner may challenge the exaction under the Fifth Amendment without having to accept the permit on those terms.
Supporting sources
…239 U. S. 33 (1915). Indeed, we do not read the appellee's brief as really asserting anything to the contrary. The "logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated," Flast v. Cohen , 392 U. S., at 102, and the necessary degree of contentiousness, Golden v. Zwickler , 394 U. S.…