Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Supreme Court of the United States · 1987 · Property

PropertyConstitutional Lawtakingsexactionsessential nexusconditions on permitsTakings Clausepermit condition

Facts

The Nollans owned a beachfront lot in Ventura County and applied to the California Coastal Commission for a permit to demolish a small bungalow and replace it with a larger three-bedroom house. The Commission granted the permit on condition that they record a deed restriction granting the public a lateral easement across the portion of their property between the mean high tide line and their seawall. The Commission justified the condition by finding that the new house would increase blockage of the ocean view, contribute to a psychological barrier to beach use, increase private use of the shorefront, and cumulatively burden public ability to reach and move along the shorefront. The Nollans challenged the condition as an uncompensated taking.

Issue

Whether the California Coastal Commission could constitutionally require the Nollans to grant the public a permanent lateral easement across their beachfront property as a condition of receiving a permit to rebuild their house. More specifically, the question was whether that permit condition sufficiently furthered the same governmental purpose that could justify denial of the permit.

Rule

A permanent public easement across private property would constitute a taking if imposed outright without compensation. A permit condition requiring the conveyance of property may be valid only if it serves the same governmental purpose that would justify denial of the permit; there must be an essential nexus between the condition exacted and the purpose of the land-use restriction. If that nexus is absent, the condition is not a valid land-use regulation but an uncompensated taking.

🔒

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.

Leah Moreno owns a bluffside lot in Santa Barbara, California, and applies for a permit to replace a one-story cottage with a taller home. The city says it may deny the permit because the new structure would obstruct motorists' ocean views, but instead offers to approve it if Leah grants the public a permanent footpath across the back edge of her lot leading to a nearby public park.

If Leah challenges the condition under the Takings Clause, which argument is strongest?

Explanation. A permanent public easement would be a taking if imposed outright. When demanded as a permit condition, it is valid only if it serves the same governmental purpose that would justify denial of the permit. Here, the city identified obstruction of ocean views as the reason it could deny the project, but a footpath to a park does not mitigate that visual obstruction. Under the majority's rule, the absence of an essential nexus makes the condition an uncompensated taking.