Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Nollan (P) owned beachfront property, and applied for a permit to build a residence on it. The property was located between two public beaches. P originally leased the property with an option to buy, and there was a small bungalow totaling 504 square feet, which was rented to summer vacationers. The building had fallen into disrepair and could no longer be rented out. P’s option to purchase was conditioned on their promise to demolish the bungalow and replace it. To build on the lot, they had to get a coastal development permit, and they submitted a plan to the Commission (D). The plan called for the removal of the bungalow and the building of a three-bedroom house in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. D conditioned approval for P's permit subject to allowing an easement for public passage across their property. The location of the easement would be bounded by the mean high tide line on one side and their seawall on the other side. This would make it easier for the public to pass between the two public beaches that were north and south of P. P protested the imposition of the condition, but D overruled the objections and granted the permit subject to the recordation of the easement. P sued, claiming that D deprived them of their property rights without due process. P contends that the condition could not be imposed absent evidence that their proposed development would have an impact on public access to the beach. The court remanded to D, but D reaffirmed the condition after a hearing. P then again petitioned the Superior Court and argued that the imposition of the condition was a taking. The trial court ruled for P, the court of appeals reversed, and the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co