Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Facts

James and Marilyn Nollan leased a beachfront lot in Ventura County, California, with an option to buy. The lot had a small 504-square-foot bungalow that had fallen into disrepair. A concrete seawall approximately eight feet high separated the beach portion from the rest of the lot, with the historic mean high tide line marking the oceanside boundary. A quarter-mile north was Faria County Park, and 1,800 feet south was another public beach known as the Cove. The Nollans' option to purchase required them to demolish the bungalow and replace it. On February 25, 1982, they applied to the California Coastal Commission for a coastal development permit to build a three-bedroom house in keeping with the neighborhood. The Commission granted the permit on the condition that the Nollans record a deed restriction granting the public an easement to pass across their property between the mean high tide line and the seawall. This easement was intended to facilitate public travel between Faria County Park and the Cove. The Nollans objected to the condition, but the Commission overruled them. While the Commission's appeal to the Court of Appeal was pending, the Nollans satisfied their option by demolishing the bungalow, building the new house, and purchasing the property without notifying the Commission.

Issues

1. Does conditioning a development permit on the property owners granting a permanent public easement across their beachfront lot constitute a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments if the permit condition does not serve the same governmental purpose as a ban on the development?
2. Does a requirement that the public be allowed to traverse a beachfront lot between the mean high tide line and a seawall substantially advance the state's asserted interests in protecting visual access to the ocean and reducing psychological barriers to beach use?

Holding

The Coastal Commission could not condition the Nollans' rebuilding permit on granting a lateral public beach easement without paying just compensation. A permanent right to traverse the property constitutes a physical occupation that would be a taking if required outright. Because an easement across the beach between the seawall and the high tide line utterly fails to remedy view blockage, psychological barriers, or beach congestion caused by the new house, the condition lacks the essential nexus to a valid police-power purpose.