Does the rough proportionality test apply to all development exactions? B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County Explained

In B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County, the Utah Supreme Court resolved a critical question about when courts must apply heightened scrutiny to government demands for property dedication as a condition of development approval.

Background and Facts

B.A.M. Development sought approval for a residential subdivision in Salt Lake County. Initially, the county required a 40-foot dedication for road widening under a general ordinance tied to the county’s Transportation Master Plan. Later, the county demanded an additional 13 feet, bringing the total dedication to 53 feet. B.A.M. objected, arguing the increased development exaction constituted an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. The county board affirmed the requirement without conducting a hearing or taking evidence.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the Nollan/Dolan rough proportionality test applies to exactions imposed through generally applicable ordinances, or only to ad hoc adjudicative decisions. The court also addressed procedural questions about judicial review of administrative land-use decisions where no administrative record exists.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the rough proportionality test applies to all development exactions, regardless of whether they arise from legislative ordinances or individual administrative determinations. The court noted that Utah Code section 17-27a-507, enacted after certiorari was granted, codified this approach by requiring that exactions have an “essential link” to a legitimate governmental interest and be “roughly proportionate” to the development’s impact. While this statute could not apply retroactively to affect substantive rights, it informed the court’s interpretation of the proper scope of constitutional protections.

The court also resolved procedural issues, holding that district courts may take evidence when reviewing land-use decisions where no administrative record exists, as authorized by subsequent statutory amendments.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly strengthens property owners’ rights by extending heightened constitutional scrutiny to routine development exactions imposed through general ordinances. Developers can now challenge such requirements under the demanding rough proportionality standard, which requires government entities to demonstrate both an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate public interest, and rough proportionality between the exaction and the development’s impact. The decision also clarifies that courts have authority to develop factual records necessary for meaningful judicial review of land-use decisions.