A Yates Anderson Brief · June 11, 2026 · By Kris Anderson, Founding Partner
The headline
When the Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. County of El Dorado in April 2024, it answered one question with rare unanimity: the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not exempt legislatively-imposed exactions from the scrutiny of Nollan/Dolan. Two years later, the working-out of that decision in the lower courts has been less unanimous — and the resulting lower-court landscape now matters directly for coastal-Alabama and Northwest-Florida property owners facing development fees, impact assessments, and ordinance-driven dedications.
This Brief tracks what the courts have done with Sheetz in its first two years and identifies the doctrinal questions still in play for owners in our footprint.
The decision, briefly
Sheetz arose from a $23,420 traffic-mitigation impact fee El Dorado County imposed on a single-family residence under a county-wide schedule adopted by the Board of Supervisors. George Sheetz argued the fee violated the Takings Clause because it bore no individualized relationship to the traffic impact of his particular project. The county responded that Nollan and Dolan — the Supreme Court's prior exactions cases requiring "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" — applied only to adjudicative exactions imposed case-by-case, not to schedule-based legislative fees.
The Court rejected that distinction unanimously. Justice Barrett's opinion held that the Takings Clause "does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions." If government conditions a building permit on the payment of money or the dedication of property, the condition is subject to Nollan/Dolan scrutiny regardless of whether it was set by a council vote or by a planning officer at the counter.
The decision was technically narrow. The Court did not decide whether El Dorado's specific fee satisfied Nollan/Dolan — it sent that question back to the California courts. But the doctrinal opening was wide. Across the country, flat-rate impact fees imposed by ordinance have long avoided constitutional scrutiny by claiming legislative immunity from Nollan/Dolan. After Sheetz, that defense is no longer available.
The lower-court landscape
Two years in, the questions the lower courts are working through fall into three buckets:
First: what counts as an "essential nexus" for a legislative fee schedule? When a county adopts a uniform traffic-mitigation fee based on average traffic per land-use type, courts are asking whether the average is enough — or whether Sheetz requires the government to show a project-specific impact. The early decisions split. Some courts treat well-documented traffic studies as adequate nexus per land-use category; others read Sheetz as requiring an individualized estimate before any condition attaches to a specific permit.
Second: what counts as "rough proportionality" for an impact fee? Even where the nexus is conceded, the proportionality question is harder. A flat $23,000 fee for any single-family residence assumes the marginal traffic impact of every new home is the same. That assumption survives only as long as the variance across homes is small. Where new construction in a county ranges from 1,200 square feet to 12,000 square feet — or where one development sits two miles from the nearest arterial and another sits at an interchange — the flat-rate assumption is harder to defend. Lower courts have begun to demand more granular evidence.
Third: when does an exaction become "money" subject to Sheetz vs. an ordinary tax or fee? The Court was careful in Sheetz not to subject every revenue-raising local fee to Nollan/Dolan. The Takings Clause applies when the government conditions the grant of a permit on payment, not when the government collects a generally applicable tax. Lower courts are now drawing that line case by case, and the line matters enormously: a "fee" that flunks Nollan/Dolan is unconstitutional, while a "tax" properly authorized by state law is generally not.
What this means for owners in coastal Alabama and Northwest Florida
For owners and developers in Baldwin and Mobile Counties in Alabama and in Escambia, Santa Rosa, Bay, and Walton Counties in Florida, three categories of fees and exactions warrant fresh scrutiny in light of Sheetz.
Beach- and coastal-access dedications. Coastal jurisdictions have long required new developments to dedicate public access easements, fund beach renourishment, or pay in lieu of dedication. Many of these conditions are imposed by general ordinance rather than negotiated case-by-case. After Sheetz, the ordinance origin no longer immunizes them. Where the dedication or fee bears no individualized relationship to the project's impact on public access, the constitutional defense gets stronger.
Stormwater and infrastructure impact fees. Coastal counties impose substantial fees for stormwater management, water and sewer extensions, and road improvements. Where these fees are calculated on a per-unit or per-square-foot basis without individualized impact analysis, owners have a credible Sheetz defense. The defense is particularly strong where the fee is significantly higher than the project's measurable burden on the affected system.
Short-term rental fees and exactions. Several Gulf-Coast municipalities have layered new STR licensing fees, parking-dedication requirements, and infrastructure contributions on coastal rental properties. Where these conditions attach to the right to operate a rental — not to a generally applicable revenue scheme — Sheetz puts pressure on the nexus and proportionality elements.
In each category, the practical question is the same: does the fee or condition bear an essential nexus and rough proportionality to a measurable impact of this property? If the answer is no, a Sheetz challenge is on the table.
What's next
The case-watch agenda for the next 18 months centers on three open questions:
First, the Sheetz remand itself, which will eventually return concrete guidance on what individualized analysis a county must show to support a uniform fee.
Second, the line between an "exaction" and a "tax." Several state supreme courts are working through cases that test where one stops and the other starts. The doctrinal answer will determine whether the universe of challengeable fees stays narrow or expands.
Third, the proportionality side of Sheetz in coastal jurisdictions specifically. Beach-access dedications, stormwater fees, and STR-related exactions are exactly the kind of conditions where the math may not pencil — and where the post-Sheetz doctrinal opening is widest.
The firm currently prosecutes multiple Alabama unauthorized-tax and impact-fee claims under preemption, Nollan/Dolan, and pure regulatory-takings theories. Sheetz has materially strengthened the doctrinal posture of those matters. We are also evaluating Florida cases — particularly along the 30A corridor, the Pensacola-Beach / Perdido-Key area, and the Panama City Beach Gulf-front — where coastal jurisdictions are imposing development conditions ripe for post-Sheetz challenge.