September 25, 2022

Volume XII, Number 268

Advertisement

September 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

September 22, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court Hands Major Win To Landowners

California already in line with decision; major impact expected in other states

By a 5-4 vote, the conservative wing of the United State Supreme Court answered two big questions in favor of the landowner, changing the way local government can condition development permits across the country. In the Koontz case, a Florida water management district rejected a development permit application because the landowner refused to reduce the size of the project or pay for off-site wetland mitigation. After trial, the lower court awarded damages to the landowner. The Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that taking claims cannot be brought for permit denials or monetary exactions.

The United States Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, reversed on all counts, holding:

  • Permit approvals and denials are both subject to the same the “rational nexus” and “rough proportionality” requirements of the Nollan-Dolan test;

  • Monetary exactions are subject to the same Nollan-Dolan test as property exactions.

The Court did not decide whether permit denials based on unconstitutional, i.e. excessive or unrelated, conditions can give rise to damages under federal law, but suggested that another remedy would be appropriate since no property or money was actually taken by the local government. The Court remanded to the Florida courts to decide whether damages are available under state law. There was a spirited dissent by Justice Kagan, joined by three other justices.

Local government groups had warned that subjecting fees and other monetary exactions to the Nollan-Dolan test would prevent them from negotiating individually with landowners in the approval context. While a number of large states, like California and Texas, already required fees to meet the Nollan-Dolan test, many others limited it to real property. The Koontz case will require them to rethink fee programs and negotiated exactions, and will give landowners another tool to fight unreasonable exactions.

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.National Law Review, Volume III, Number 177
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

The California Real Estate Journal consistently ranks Sheppard Mullin among the largest real estate practices in California, and the largest real estate practice in California of any AmLaw 100 firm. Not only does the firm have bench strength, but our attorneys function as an integrated team. Our real estate practice is complemented by an understanding of the land use and regulatory aspects associated with property development. We pride ourselves on practicality and problem solving.

With one of the most diverse real estate and development practices in California, Sheppard...

858-720-8989
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement