Sheetz v. El Dorado County

Background

A homeowner, George Sheetz, wanted a building permit in El Dorado County but had to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee set by the County’s General Plan. The fee came from a pre-set rate schedule based on development type and location, not an individualized calculation tied to Sheetz’s specific project. He paid under protest and sued in state court, arguing the fee was an unlawful taking under the Constitution because it was not tied to his project’s actual traffic impact. The California Court of Appeal rejected his claim, saying the Nollan and Dolan takings test applies only to ad hoc administrative permit conditions, not to fees enacted by a legislature.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court asked whether the Takings Clause treats legislative and administrative permit conditions differently. The Court held it does not. The majority explained that the Constitution’s text, historical practice, and prior cases do not exempt legislatures from ordinary takings rules. The Court said the two-part Nollan/Dolan test — asking whether a permit condition has an essential connection to the government’s land-use purpose and whether it is roughly proportional to the development’s impact — applies whether a fee is imposed by a board or an administrator. The Court vacated the California decision and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling means fees or permit conditions enacted by local legislatures can be challenged under the same takings test as administrative conditions. Property owners who pay broad, formula-based fees may press takings claims, and local governments may need to rework fee schedules or show stronger links between fees and specific development harms. The Court left open whether class-wide fees require the same level of individual tailoring; that question goes back to state courts.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote concurrences. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Jackson) noted a threshold issue: Nollan/Dolan applies only if the condition would be a compensable taking outside the permit context. Other concurrences stressed that the Constitution’s rules should not turn on whether many properties or one property are affected.