Case Study: Nollan V. Ccc- Essay, Research Paper

Case Study: Nollan v. CCC-

Abstract of:

483 U.S. 825, 97 L. Ed.2d 677

James Patrick Nollan, et

ux., Appellant

v.

California Coastal

Commission.

Case Definition:

The case is Nollan versus the California Coastal Commission.

The Nollans were the appellates against a decision made by the

California Coastal Commission (CCC). The Nollans had been leasing a

property on the California coast with which they had an option to buy.

The property lies directly at the foot of the Pacific Ocean and is a

prime piece of real estate on the California Coast. The property had

been used by the Nollans to rent out during the summer months to

vacationers. At the end of the Nollans lease they took the option to

purchase the land and began preparing for the terms of purchase by the

previous land owner. Among those terms was the demolishing of the

small deteriorating bungalow that the Nollans had been leasing. The

Nollans had planned to expand the structure from the small bungalow

that it was to a three bedroom house more complimentary to the

surrounding homes and their needs. In order to begin destruction

of the property and begin rebuilding the site the Nollans had to

secure a permit from the California Coastal Commission. Upon

submitting the permit application, the CCC found that the permit

should be granted on the condition that the Nollans provide public

access to the beach and to the local county park, which lay adjacent

to the property. This provision called for the Nollans to use a

portion of their land to be used as a public walkway to the beach and

park. The Nollans protested to the condition, but the CCC overruled

the objection and granted the permit with the condition intact.

Case Decision:

The Nollans filed a petition to the Ventura County Superior

Court asking that the condition to supply easement be removed from

their permit. The Nollans argument was that there was not enough

evidence to support the developments limiting of public access to the

beach. The argument was agreed upon by the court and the case was

remanded to the California Coastal Commission for a full evidentiary

hearing on the issue of public access to the beach. The CCC held a

public hearing which led to further factual findings which reaffirmed

the need for the condition. The CCC s argument was that the building

of the new structure would limit view of the ocean, and therefore

limit access to the public who had full rights to use the beach. To

compensate for the limitations on the public the Nollans would have to

provide access to the beach from their property. The CCC also noted

that all of the other developments on the same tract of land had been

conditioned similarly in having to provide public access to the

ocean.

The Nollans filed a supplemental petition for a writ of

administrative mandamus (a writ that would order a public official or

body to comply with a specified duty issued by a superior court). The

Nollans argument was that the permit condition violated the Takings

Clause in the V Amendment, and also in the XIV Amendment of the

Constitution. The court agreed that the administrative record did not

provide for in showing the existence of adverse impact on the publics

access to the ocean. The court granted the writ of mandamus, and

directed that the public access condition be removed from the permit.

The CCC appealed the case in the California Court of Appeal and won

the decision. The Court of Appeal found an error in the Supreme Courts

interpretation of the Coastal Act which mandates public access to any

category of developments on the coast. The Court of Appeal also found

that the Takings claim was unsubstantiated by the Nollans. The permit

condition did take from the value of the land, but did not restrict

them of reasonable use of their property.

The Nollans then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

The argument made by the Nollans continued to revolve around the

Takings Clause in the V Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the

requirement of the permit only put a restriction on the use of the

property and not a taking of the property. The Supreme Court also

held the California State Constitution to have standing, and upheld

the ruling made by the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning for Decision:

I believe that the reason the Supreme Court decided as it did

was that its interpretation of the California State Constitution

provided for the authority of the CCC s permit regulation. The part

within the states constitution says that access to any navigable

waters shall not be limited by any person when it is required for any

public purpose. The navigable water clause infers the actual use of

the water and not the beach itself. The Supreme Court did not want to

make a case of this for intervening in states constitutions is nasty

business; and there was not a big deal concerning the language of the

law from either of the parties. I think that a similar case could be

argued attacking the Constitution of the State of California

concerning the navigable waters clause. I would still have to agree

with the CCC s permit condition of allowing public access to the

beach, because I like the beach and am in no position to purchase land

bordering it so I need access.