A-Boy Plumbing & Electrical Supply

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), often referred to as Dolan v. Tigard, is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that imposed significant restrictions on zoning and land-use mandates. The ruling clarified that municipalities cannot compel property owners to provide unrelated public improvements as a prerequisite for zoning approval without infringing upon the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Facts

The petitioner, Dolan, proprietor of A-Boy Plumbing & Electrical Supply located in Tigard, Oregon, applied for permission to enlarge her store and pave its parking area. The city planning commission granted approval contingent upon Dolan dedicating a portion of her land for a public greenway adjacent to a nearby creek and constructing a pedestrian and bicycle path aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Dolan challenged these stipulations, contending that they bore no relation to her development project and amounted to an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment.

The Oregon State Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) determined there was a reasonable connection between the mandated conditions and the development: the expanded building and paved parking were expected to increase runoff into the creek, justifying the greenway dedication, while the anticipated rise in traffic supported the need for the pathway. This judgment was affirmed by both the Oregon Court of Appeals and the Oregon Supreme Court before the case advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Decision

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Oregon appellate courts and LUBA, holding that under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, government entities cannot impose demands that require relinquishing constitutional rights as a condition for discretionary approvals when there is minimal or no nexus between the property and the public benefit sought. The Court introduced a two-part inquiry: first, whether an "essential nexus" exists between permit conditions and legitimate state objectives; second, whether the exactions are roughly proportional to the impact anticipated from the proposed development.

While recognizing that an essential nexus existed, the Court concluded that the City failed to conduct an individualized assessment that linked the required land dedications to the specific nature and extent of impacts caused by Dolan’s project. Furthermore, mandating a public greenway—rather than allowing a private easement granting property owner privileges such as exclusive use—was found to be excessive. The City also did not sufficiently demonstrate that constructing the pedestrian and bicycle pathway was necessary to mitigate traffic increases resulting from the expansion.

See also

• Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 512
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
• List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court