Supreme Court Rules that Legislation Does Not Protect Improper Impact Fees
Following a unanimous decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court today, California home owners, builders and developers may now challenge improper local impact fees for housing development even if the fees are authorized by legislation.
The decision is a major victory for the home owner involved in the case as well as home builders and developers, especially in California. NAHB and the California Building Industry Association (CBIA) submitted two amicus briefs in the case supporting the home owner.
The case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, involved George Sheetz, a California resident who in 2016 applied for a permit to build an 1,800-square-foot manufactured home on a residential-zoned lot he owned. The county imposed a $23,420 “traffic mitigation fee” on the permit. Sheetz protested the fee but ultimately paid it, and then immediately sued the county arguing the fee was improper.
At state court, Sheetz argued that the fee was not closely connected to or proportional to the actual impact his new residence would have on the roads, key tests laid out by precedent in two prior Supreme Court cases (commonly called the Nollan/Dolan test). The county countered that the test does not apply because the impact fee was authorized by legislation — from the county council in this case — rather than by bureaucracy.
A small number of state courts, including California’s, have carved out legal exceptions to the proportionality test if the fees in question are authorized by a legislative body, as opposed to simply a permitting board or other administrative office. El Dorado County argued that this arrangement protected the fees from challenges under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The California state court sided with the county and Sheetz appealed to the Supreme Court.
NAHB and CBIA wrote in their amicus briefs that the Supreme Court has an opportunity to “make clear that there is no such ‘loophole’ in the prohibition against governmental demands for unconstitutional conditions.” An improper taking is improper even if approved by legislation.
All nine Supreme Court Justices agreed, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the unanimous opinion. Justice Barrett wrote, “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”
The narrow ruling kicked the case back down to lower courts to decide if Sheetz’s $23,420 fee was a taking, and thus, improper. It did not resolve larger questions about the way permitting and impact fees are calculated and structured. It did, however, provide an avenue for home owners, builders and developers to invoke the Takings Clause in challenges to impact fees in states where the fees are authorized by legislation.
The case may have a significant long-term impact on permitting fees for home development. NAHB will closely monitor fallout from the case and communicate directly with members.
Latest from NAHBNow
May 23, 2025
Volatile Spring Selling Season ContinuesSales of newly built, single-family homes in April increased 10.9% to a 743,000 seasonally adjusted annual rate from a downwardly revised March number, according to newly released data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Census Bureau. The pace of new home sales in April was up 3.3% compared to a year earlier.
May 22, 2025
NAHB Members Cite Impact of Tariff Uncertainty on Home BuildingTariff uncertainty from the Trump administration continues to impact home builders across the country, as builders prepare for potential price hikes and supply chain issues. NAHB members have been sharing the impact that these tariffs are having with media outlets across the United States.
Latest Economic News
May 22, 2025
Existing Home Sales Fall in AprilDespite the brief retreat in mortgage rates and increased supply, existing home sales dropped to 7-month low in April, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). This unexpected decline suggests buyers’ activity continues to be constrained by economic uncertainty and ongoing affordability challenges even with improved market conditions.
May 22, 2025
Income Growth Helps Mute Existing Affordability ConstraintsDespite solid income gains and lower home prices, Americans still continue to face major housing affordability challenges, according to the latest data from the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)/Wells Fargo Cost of Housing Index (CHI).
May 21, 2025
Gains for Multifamily Missing Middle over Last YearThe missing middle construction sector includes development of medium-density housing, such as townhouses, duplexes and other small multifamily properties.