Property

Brief

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Procedural History:

• California Court rejected claim of a violation of the fifth amendment. Ruled for Commission.
• Appealed by Nollan.
• Reversed for Nollan.

Facts:

• Nollans own a beachfront lot in Ventura, CA.
• There was originally a smaller bungalow on the property.
• Nollans wanted to demolish the worn down bungalow and replace it.
• They needed to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission.
• The permit was granted subject to condition they allow a public easement to pass across a portion of their property bounded by the mean high tide line on one side.
  • In order to make it easier for the public to get to the park and cove.
• Nollans protested, commission overruled and granted subject to condition.
• The commission, on review, felt that the home, without a public easement, would burden the publics ability to traverse to and along the shorefront.
  • Therefore, not violating the constitution.

Issue:

• Is the granting, subject to condition, a taking?

Holding:

• Yes.

Reasoning:

• The court looks at whether it substantially advances legitimate state interests.
• The commission argues that a permit condition that serves the same legitimate police power purpose as a refusal to issue the permit should not be found to be a taking if the refusal to issue the permit would not constitute a taking and the court agrees with the contention.
• The evident constitutional propriety disappears, however, if the condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition.