United States Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Real Property Owner in Federal Constitutional Takings Case

by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Contact

The Supreme Court of the United States published an important land use case on June 25, 2013, which provided a partial victory for a real property owner, based on the denial of a permit by a Florida permitting agency. The property owner argued that Florida’s St. Johns River Water Management District had committed a “taking” of property rights without “just compensation” by denying a Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) Permit, and a Wetlands Resources Management (WRM) Permit. Specifically, the Court held that when a land use agency demands exactions (in the form of either real property set asides or monetary payments), as a condition for approving a permit, the government’s demands must have a “nexus” and a “rough proportionality” to the effects of the proposed land use for which a permit is sought. Based upon its holding the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that the denial of the permit could not result in a “takings” claim under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Court’s opinion provides that in the land use context, the conditions for issuing a permit cannot be extortionate and out of proportion to the impact of the project. If a permitting agency seeks to apply out-of-proportion requirements as a condition precedent to issuing a permit, then it is effectively taking the real property owner’s property, and must pay just compensation. Otherwise, the agency is impermissibly denying a constitutional right in violation of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. This is true, even if the permitting agency would have been within its rights to deny the permit for some other reason.

This case involved a 14.9 acre piece of property owned by Roy Koontz, Sr. located adjacent to the intersection of State Road 50 and State Road 408, east of Orlando. The property owner proposed developing the 3.7 acres northern section of his property, and dedicating a conservation easement over the remaining southern 11 acres to the water management district. Based on the facts presented in the majority opinion for the court, the water management district considered the 11 acre conservation easement inadequate, and indicated it would approve the development if: (1) the petitioner reduced the development to 1 acre and deeded the remaining 13.9 acres to the district; or (2) paid for a District off-site wetland mitigation project. The petitioner filed suit, asserting that the mitigation demands were disproportionate to the environmental effects of the project he was seeking to permit.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion reversed the holding of the Florida Supreme Court determining that the actions by the water management district did not constitute a taking under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in two earlier land use takings cases (Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)). The Florida Supreme Court held that a taking did not occur since the permit had been denied once the property owner would not agree to the requested conditions, rather than approved subject to conditions. The U.S. Supreme Court found that this distinction did not save the water management district’s action from constituting a taking: “The principles that undergird our decisions in Nollan and Dolan do not change depending on whether the government approves a permit on the condition that the applicant turn over property or denies a permit because the applicant refuses to do so.” (Opinion, p.8).

The Florida Supreme Court also held that the actions by the water management district could not constitute a taking because the petitioner was given the alternative of securing the permit by agreeing to spend money. This holding was also rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said that a constitutional taking in the context of a land use case does not need to depend upon a taking of real property. Even if the agency is seeking “monetary exactions” rather than the relinquishment of real property, the “monetary exactions” must satisfy the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of the Court’s earlier decisions. (See Opinion, p. 15) .

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision has the potential to have large implications for land use and permitting within Florida and throughout the United States. Just how large of an impact it will have remains to be seen. The 5 U.S. Supreme Court Justices siding with the majority opinion clearly disagreed with the 4 U.S. Supreme Court Justices who dissented regarding the magnitude of the ramifications of this decision. Justice Kagan, in her dissent concluded by saying: “The majority’s errors here are consequential. The majority turns a broad array of local land-use regulations into federal constitutional questions.” In contrast, Justice Alito, writing for the majority, said, “Finally, we disagree with the dissent’s forecast that our decision will work a revolution in land use law by depriving local governments of the ability to charge reasonable permitting fees. (Post, at 8). Numerous courts – including courts in many of our Nation’s most populous States – have confronted constitutional challenges to monetary exactions over the last two decades and applied the standards from Nollan and Dolan or something like it.” (Opinion, p.21)

Certainly, it appears that in light of this case, property owners will want to look closely at whether the actions by governmental entities and agencies during a permitting or land use negotiation would result in the imposition of burdensome conditions that do not bear a reasonable connection and proportionality to the activity sought to be permitted. If they do not, then under the Koontz decision, the property owner could be entitled to just compensation for an unconstitutional taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Regarding the final outcome for this property owner, the case has been remanded by to the State courts, and the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court leaves many questions unanswered. The Court did not address whether the exaction or concession sought by the agency from the property owner was disproportionate to the environmental effects of the development the property owner tried to permit. Nor did it answer whether the actions by the agency were specific and definite enough to constitute conditions precedent to the issuance of the permit. (See Opinion, p. 13). The court also left open the question of whether damages would be the appropriate remedy for a “taking” under federal law when a permit is denied, rather than an injunction ordering the issuance of the permit. The court noted that it did not need to decide this issue of federal law because the property owner in this case brought its claim under state law which allowed it to seek damages. (See Opinion, p.13). In light of the many unanswered questions and the remand of the case back to the Florida courts, additional issues will be addressed if this case continues its process through the court system. We will continue to report regarding future developments.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Contact
more
less

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.