Municipalities often use exactions to require developers and property owners to provide needed public amenities. A developer or property owner must be compensated for the exaction if there is no nexus between the exaction and a public purpose. ^[80]

Courts have found that requiring a property owner to grant a public easement along a beach as a condition to construct a house on a beach constituted a taking since the exaction did not protect the public’s ability to see the beach ^[81] and that requiring a dedication of land for a greenway and bicycle/pedestrian pathway did not bear the necessary relationship to problems created by a commercial development to avoid a taking. ^[81A] In addition the regulation must be reasonably related to the public need or burden that a property owner’s use of his or her property creates or to which it contributes. ^[82] Therefore, regulations that impose land dedication requirements to develop property may constitute a taking if the property owner is required to dedicate property in excess of the amount that is necessary to offset the additional burdens on the public interest resulting from the use of his or her property. ^[83] The cost to the landowner must be “roughly proportional” to the additional public burden caused by the development. ^[84A]

In 2022 the Tennessee General Assembly adopted legislation prohibiting required dedications of property "unless there is an essential nexus between the dedication...and a legitimate local governmental interest and the dedication....is roughly proportional both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed use or development of the property." T.C.A. § 13-4-303.

Notes:
^[80] Dolan v. City of Tigard, supra; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra.

^[81] Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra.

^[81A] Dolan v. City of Tigard, supra.

^[82] Dolan v. City of Tigard, supra; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra; William J. (Jack) Jones Insurance Trust v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, 731 F.Supp. 912 (W.D. Ark. 1990).

^[83] Dolan v. City of Tigard, supra; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, supra; William J. (Jack) Jones Insurance Trust v. City of Fort Smith, Arkansas, supra.

^[84A] Dolan v. City of Tigard, supra.