Also known as: Nollan/Dolan · Nollan Dolan · Nollan-Dolan test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional doctrine that subjects land-use permit conditions to heightened scrutiny under the Takings Clause. The government must demonstrate an essential nexus between the demanded exaction and a legitimate public interest that the proposed development would otherwise burden. The exaction must also be roughly proportional in nature and extent to the actual impact of the development.
Nina Nielsen owns a vacant urban lot and applies for a stormwater permit to build a retail store. The city approves the permit only if Nielsen funds construction of a sports complex several miles away. Nielsen refuses because the complex bears no relation to stormwater impacts from the project. The city denies the permit outright.
Nestor Navarro seeks a conditional use permit to redevelop property into a commercial facility. The city conditions approval on payment of a substantial recreation fee for off-site improvements. Navarro refuses the fee after determining it exceeds the project's localized impacts. The city denies the permit.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Yes. The doctrine governs permit denials based on refusal to accept an exaction that lacks the required nexus or proportionality. The refusal to issue the permit because the applicant rejects the invalid condition itself triggers scrutiny under the Takings Clause.
Supporting sources
Yes. The standards apply equally to monetary exactions. A government may not evade review simply by demanding payment instead of a real-property interest when conditioning a discretionary permit.
Supporting sources
The government must establish an essential connection between the exaction and a legitimate public interest that the development would otherwise burden. An off-site facility unrelated to the project's specific impacts fails this test.
Supporting sources
The government must demonstrate that the exaction is scaled in both nature and extent to the actual impact of the proposed development. Evidence such as usage studies or cost-allocation calculations is typically needed to meet this standard.
Supporting sources
…and article I, section 19 of the California Constitution. The claim of a taking in exaction of the in lieu fee was one to which "Nollan/Dolan/Ehrlich heightened or intermediate scrutiny analysis" should apply, because "the monetary sum of $567,000 exacted by the City here is a fee, exaction or payment in a 'discretionary context'…