Skip to main content
Home
Home

California Land Use & Development Law Report

tree in grassy meadow

California Land Use & Development Law Report

California Land Use & Development Law Report offers insights into legal issues relating to development and use of land and federal, state and local permitting and approval processes. View posts by topic. Subscribe 🡢

Supreme Court Outside
April 19, 2024 Exactions and Assessments Takings

Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny 

In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution applies differently when permit conditions are imposed legislatively rather than administratively. View blog post
Buildings Stores
June 26, 2023 Exactions and Assessments

Agreement Purporting to Prevent City from Imposing New Impact Fees on Project Infringed Police Powers

 

The Court of Appeal held that a city-developer agreement that ostensibly precluded the City of Oakland from imposing any new impact fees on the project constituted an impermissible infringement of the City's police power. Discovery Builders Inc v City of Oakland, 92 Cal. App. 5th 799 (2023).

View blog post
view above looking down at forrest
March 24, 2023 Exactions and Assessments

Court Orders Refund of All Unexpended Fees in Landmark Mitigation Fee Act Case

A recent case involving developer Charles Keenan and the City of Palo Alto highlights the importance of strict compliance with Mitigation Fee Act's requirement that findings be made every five years concerning unexpended fees.

View blog post
Housing Real Estate
April 28, 2022 Exactions and Assessments

Suit Challenging City’s Interpretation of 20-Year-Old Affordable Housing Agreement Was Timely

The Court of Appeal ruled that a suit concerning an affordable housing fee that plaintiff had agreed to pay two decades earlier was still timely because the 90-day limitations period under the Subdivision Map Act did not begin to run until a dispute arose over the interpretation of provisions in the affordable housing agreement. Schmeir v. City of Berkeley, 76 Cal. App.

View blog post
Home
Jump back to top