Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Argued March 30, 1987
Decided June 26, 1987
Full case nameNollan et ux. v. California Coastal Commission
Citations483 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
Prior177 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
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, Powell, O'Connor
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall
DissentBlackmun
DissentStevens, joined by Blackmun
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. V

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled 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 unconstitutional. The petitioners, James and Marilyn Nollan, were represented by Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm, and the respondent, the California Coastal Commision, was represented by counsel from the California Attorney General's Office. 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. 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.

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.