Also known as: proportionality tests · proportionality principle · proportionality
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard requiring that government-imposed conditions on land-use permits bear a rough proportionality to the projected impact of the proposed development. The government must demonstrate an individualized determination that the exaction is related in both nature and extent to the development's effects.
Pedro Pacheco sought a building permit to expand his warehouse. The city demanded he pay $200,000 toward unrelated traffic improvements or face denial. When Pacheco refused, the city withheld the permit. The court applied the proportionality test and found the demand lacked an individualized showing tying the sum to Pacheco's project impacts, rendering the refusal a taking.
Maria Lopez applied for a rezoning permit to build a small retail center. The county required dedication of a strip of land for a future park unrelated to traffic from the project. Lopez challenged the condition. The court applied the proportionality test and held the exaction failed for lack of individualized determination connecting the dedication's extent to the development's impact.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Samir Khan sought approval to subdivide land into residential lots. The town conditioned the permit on a $150,000 payment for sewer upgrades serving a different neighborhood. Khan sued after the permit was denied. The court applied the proportionality test, finding no individualized showing that the sum was proportionate to the project's actual effects.
Elena Soto requested a permit to construct an office building. The city insisted on conveyance of an easement for flood control that exceeded any runoff attributable to the project. Soto refused and sued when the permit was withheld. The court applied the proportionality test and ruled the condition constituted a taking.
David Ruiz sought a permit for a large apartment complex. The municipality required funding for road widening miles away from the site. Ruiz declined and the permit was denied. The court applied the proportionality test, concluding the demand lacked the required connection to the development's specific impacts.
Aisha Patel applied to develop a shopping plaza. The county demanded dedication of on-site acreage for public recreation far exceeding any recreational demand created by the plaza. Patel sued after denial. The court applied the proportionality test and found the exaction violated the required rough proportionality.
The government must make an individualized determination that the exaction is related in both nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. A failure to do so renders the condition a taking.
Supporting sources
No. The test extends to permit denials and demands for monetary exactions as well as dedications of real property.
Supporting sources
Yes. When a government refuses a permit because the applicant rejects an exaction lacking the required proportionality, that denial is subject to scrutiny under the exactions doctrine.
Supporting sources
The condition constitutes a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and the government may not impose it without paying just compensation.
Supporting sources
…decided and that Congress has authority to enact remedial legislation under §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The congruence and proportionality test announced by the Court today is not supported by precedent and unduly restricts Congress’ §5 power. City of Boerne v. Flores <!-- acedexams opinion md v1 -- Case information -…