Also known as: Nollan/Dolan analysis · Nollan-Dolan test · Nollan Dolan · Nollan/Dolan · essential nexus · rough proportionality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional test applied to government conditions on land-use permits that require conveyance of a property interest to the public. The test demands an essential nexus between the condition and a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit, plus rough proportionality between the exaction's burden and the development's projected impacts.
Naomi Norton sought a permit to build a home on her coastal bluff. The commission approved the permit only if Norton conveyed a public lateral easement along the bluff edge. Norton refused and sued, claiming the condition effected a taking. The court applied the Nollan-Dolan analysis and found no essential nexus between the easement and any impact caused by the proposed home.
Nestor Navarro applied for permits to expand a commercial site near wetlands. The district offered approval only if Navarro paid for off-site improvements or conveyed part of the parcel. Navarro rejected both options and sued after the permit was denied. The court held that the Nollan-Dolan analysis governs demands for money as well as real-property dedications, so the denial triggered scrutiny.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Nia Nkosi sought approval to redevelop a waterfront parcel. The city conditioned the permit on Nkosi dedicating a strip for a public trail. Nkosi refused, the city denied the permit, and Nkosi sued. The court held that the Nollan-Dolan analysis does not apply to an ordinary denial of a development permit.
Nancy Nelson applied to expand a retail building. The city approved the permit only if Nelson dedicated a strip of land for a public bike path. Nelson challenged the condition as a taking. The court applied the Nollan-Dolan analysis and examined whether the dedication was roughly proportional to the traffic impacts of the expansion.
The government must show an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate interest that would justify denying the permit outright. It must also demonstrate that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impacts of the proposed development.
Supporting sources
Yes. The standards govern demands for money as well as dedications of real property. A permit denial based on an applicant's refusal to pay an unsupported monetary exaction is subject to the same scrutiny.
Supporting sources
The condition constitutes a taking. The government may not leverage its permitting power to obtain property interests unrelated to the specific burdens the development would impose.
Supporting sources
The government bears the burden of showing that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development.
Supporting sources
…The Commission’s condition is a valid exercise of its authority to regulate land use in the coastal zone. II. The Court’s new “essential nexus” test is not supported by precedent. The cases cited by the Court do not establish such a rigid requirement. III. Even under the Court’s test, the easement condition should be upheld. The…