Skip to main content


In 2013, the Supreme Court concluded that monetary exactions must be considered with the same judicial scrutiny as land exactions. Land exactions are required contributions from an individual to a government entity in exchange for approval to develop real property. Land exactions proposed by regulatory bodies must be roughly proportional and bear a nexus to the development permit requested, otherwise the exaction constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District, the Supreme Court extended the nexus/rough proportionality test to instances in which government bodies impose monetary conditions on land development. This Comment argues that it was unwise for the Court to apply this strict test to monetary exactions. The Court’s holding might create a chilling effect on land use permitting by incentivizing officials to deny development applications to avoid legal risk, rather than attempt to impose appropriate mitigation conditions.


File nameDate UploadedVisibilityFile size
8 Sep 2022
316 kB



  • Subject
    • Constitutional Law

    • Environmental Law

    • Land Use Law

    • Property Law and Real Estate

    • State and Local Government Law

  • Journal title
    • Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review

  • Volume
    • 41

  • Issue
    • 2

  • Pagination
    • 555

  • Date submitted

    8 September 2022