Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | |
---|---|
Argued March 30, 1987 Decided June 26, 1987 | |
Full case name | Nollan et ux. v. California Coastal Commission |
Citations | 483 U.S. 825 (more) 107 S. Ct. 3141; 97 L. Ed. 2d 677; 1987 U.S. LEXIS 2980; 55 U.S.L.W. 5145; 26 ERC (BNA) 1073; 17 ELR 20918 |
Case history | |
Prior | 177 Cal.App.3d 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 28 (App. 2d Dist. 1986); probable jurisdiction noted, 479 U.S. 913 (1986). |
Holding | |
A governmental exaction has to be substantially related to a legitimate government interest and there must be a nexus between the exaction and that interest. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor |
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
Dissent | Blackmun |
Dissent | Stevens, joined by Blackmun |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. V |
In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional. The Coastal Commission had asserted that the public-easement condition was a legitimate state interest of diminishing the "blockage of the view of the ocean" caused by the home renovation, even though the easement would not have created any additional public view of the ocean. The Court held that in evaluating such claims, there must be an "essential nexus" between a legitimate state interest and the actual conditions of the permit being issued.[1]
In a 5–4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that a requirement by the CCC was a taking in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.