Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Country/Territory
United States of America
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jun 26, 1987
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
Supreme Court of the United States
Judge
Scalia, Rehnqist, White, Powell, O'Connor. Brennan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Marshall joined. Blackmun and Stevens filed a dissenting opinion.
Reference number
No. 86-133
Language
English
Subject
Land & soil, Environment gen., Legal questions
Keyword
Land-use planning Coastal zone management
Abstract
Appellants owned a home on the beach front and a seawall divided the residential lot on the property from the beach portion. The beach portion of the Appellants’ property was located between two public beaches and there was no public easement over the Appellants’ beach. The Appellee conditioned the granting of the permit to construct a new residence on a deed restriction granting an easement from the high tide line to the seawall, which separated the beach portion from the lot. The Appellee articulated that the building of a new larger home would burden visual access and psychological access. Also, it would increase demand for beach access, which could be alleviated by requiring the easement The Supreme Court he;d that conditions can be placed on building permits by the government so long as the condition is rationally related to the harms the government would seek to prevent that might be caused by the construction. Denial of a permit would not be a taking, so conditioning of the permit is not a taking unless the condition itself fails to further the end that would justify the prohibition of construction. When this nexus is eliminated the situation becomes untenable. The lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was. The purpose would then become the obtaining of an easement without payment of compensation. Unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an out and out plan of extortion. A state cannot condition a property use permit on an act that does not address the problem caused by the permitted use. A land use regulation is not a taking if it substantially advances state interests and does not deny an owner economically viable use of the land. In this case the California Coastal Commission substituted a condition for outright prohibition that failed to further any of the legitimate government interests that were advanced as justification. The easement for public access did nothing to help the public’s view of the beach. If the Commission wants an easement across Nollan’s property it must pay for it.
Full text
COU-159727.pdf