## Facts

- James and Marilyn Nollan owned a beachfront lot in Ventura County, California, separated from the sandy beach by a seawall, with a small bungalow on the property.
- The Nollans sought a permit to demolish the bungalow and build a larger residence, requiring approval from the California Coastal Commission under state coastal regulation.
- The Commission granted the permit on the condition that the Nollans dedicate a public lateral-access easement along the beach in front of their house, allowing the public to pass and re-pass.
- The Commission justified the condition by asserting the larger house would contribute to a perceived “wall” of shoreline houses, reduce ocean views from the road, and create a psychological barrier discouraging public beach use, thereby increasing congestion at existing access points.
- The Nollans refused the easement and challenged the condition as an uncompensated taking of a property interest under the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether conditioning a coastal development permit on the grant of a public lateral-access easement across private beachfront property effects a taking requiring just compensation.
2. Whether the permit condition must share an “essential nexus” with the governmental interests that could justify denying the permit.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the state appellate court in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that a compelled permanent public access easement would be a taking because it appropriates a core property right, including the right to exclude.
- The Court accepted that government may condition land-use permits to advance legitimate purposes and may impose conditions that mitigate impacts that could justify permit denial.
- The Court concluded the required lateral-access easement lacked an essential nexus to the Commission’s stated interests (visual access, psychological barriers, and congestion concerns).
- The condition therefore amounted to an unconstitutional taking; the state could not require the easement as a price of the permit without compensation.

## Legal Principles

- A compelled permanent public access easement across private property is a taking because it authorizes physical occupation and diminishes the owner’s right to exclude.
- Permit conditions that require surrender of property interests are constitutional only if they further the same legitimate governmental purpose that would justify denying the permit.
- An exaction must have an “essential nexus” to the stated governmental interest and to the impact of the proposed development; absent that connection, the condition is an uncompensated taking.
- Government may pursue public access goals through eminent domain with just compensation, but may not shift the cost of a general public program onto an individual permit applicant through an unrelated exaction.

## Conclusion

The Court held that conditioning a building permit on granting a public lateral-access easement was a taking because the exaction lacked an essential nexus to the harms the Commission identified from the proposed development, so the easement could not be required without just compensation.


Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)