Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 · Property

PropertyTakings ClauseLand-use permitsUnconstitutional conditionsExactionstakingsland-use permitexaction

Facts

Koontz applied for permits to develop 3.7 acres of his wetland property and offered to deed a conservation easement over the remaining approximately 11 acres. The District said that was inadequate and indicated it would approve the project only if he either reduced the development to 1 acre and placed a conservation easement over the rest or proceeded as proposed while also funding offsite mitigation work on District-owned land. Koontz refused those additional concessions and the District denied the permits. He then sought relief under a Florida statute authorizing monetary damages for agency action constituting a taking without just compensation.

Issue

Whether the Nollan and Dolan requirements of nexus and rough proportionality apply when a land-use permitting authority denies a permit because the applicant refuses the demanded concession rather than granting the permit subject to the condition. Also, whether those requirements apply when the demanded concession is a monetary exaction tied to a specific parcel of land rather than a conveyance of a real-property interest.

Rule

The government may not condition approval of a land-use permit on a demand for property unless there is an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the demand and the effects of the proposed land use. That rule applies even when the government denies the permit because the applicant refuses the demand, and it also applies to monetary exactions when the demand is linked to a specific, identifiable parcel of real property.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tampa, Lena Ortiz applied for a permit to build a small apartment building on her parcel near a marsh. The city planning office told her the permit would be denied unless she granted a public pedestrian easement across the lot, and when she refused, the city formally denied the permit.

Which is the strongest statement of the constitutional rule governing Lena's claim?

Explanation. The majority held that the Nollan/Dolan unconstitutional-conditions rule cannot be evaded by denying a permit because the applicant refused the demanded concession. The injury is the coercive withholding of the benefit to pressure surrender of the right not to have property taken without just compensation. The fact that the government could deny a permit for other reasons, or that no property was ultimately transferred, does not by itself defeat the claim.