Also known as: Nollan test · Nollan nexus · essential nexus
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional requirement that a government-imposed exaction in exchange for a land-use permit must bear an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest that would justify outright denial of the permit. The condition must directly mitigate impacts caused by the proposed development rather than advance an independent public objective.
Seaside Homes LLC sought a permit to build fifty homes on a coastal bluff. The commission approved the project only if Seaside granted a permanent public easement along the bluff edge for shoreline access. The easement served general recreational goals and did not offset view obstruction or beach congestion traceable to the new homes. Seaside challenged the condition as an unconstitutional taking.
Riverview Manufacturing applied for a permit to add a warehouse along the river. The authority approved the permit only if Riverview dedicated a thirty-foot riverfront strip for a public greenway and bike path. City records tied the requirement solely to broad recreation and access goals unrelated to any traffic or flooding effects from the warehouse. Riverview sued claiming an uncompensated taking.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The government must demonstrate that the required conveyance of a property interest directly mitigates a specific impact created by the proposed development. The condition must advance the same interest that would have justified outright denial of the permit.
No. When a transit lane or greenway forms part of an earlier master plan developed independently of the project, the condition lacks the required connection to impacts generated by the proposed development.
Nollan supplies the essential-nexus threshold. Even when that nexus exists, the government must still prove under Dolan that the nature and extent of the exaction are roughly proportional to the project's impacts.
The condition fails the nexus test and constitutes an unconstitutional taking. A trail or easement that primarily serves public recreation rather than addressing runoff, erosion, or traffic from the development is invalid.