Eminent Domain Report

In 2024, the Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent when it held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, respectively. However, the Supreme Court did not decide whether the legislatively enacted fee program challenged by Sheetz actually failed to comply with Nollan / Dolan. Instead, it remanded that issue back to the California courts so that they could address the issue in the first ...

In 2024, in what was heralded as a big win for developers in California, the U.S. Supreme Court upended decades of California precedent and held that legislatively enacted development impact fees must satisfy the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” tests established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825 and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374. Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024) 601 U.S. 267. But the Supreme Court did not decide whether the legislatively enacted fee program at issue in Sheetz actually failed to comply with ...

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court decided one of two pending cases dealing with inclusionary housing, holding that when a public agency requires a developer to convey units at below market rates and make substantial cash payments, the developer may challenge these conditions under the California Mitigation Fee Act.  (Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto (Oct. 17, 2013) 2013 Cal. Lexis 8112.)  The California Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the scope of the Mitigation Fee Act, confirming that inclusionary in-lieu fees are subject to the essential nexus and rough ...