Alpine Homes, Inc. v. City of W. Jordan
2017 UT 45
| Utah | 2017Background
- West Jordan charged developers impact fees (2003–2006) governed by Utah’s Impact Fees Act, which requires fees be spent/encumbered for specified public improvements within six years.
- Thirteen developers sued in 2012 alleging (1) violations of the Act (misspent/unspent fees) and (2) that those violations amounted to unconstitutional takings and alternatively an equitable right to refunds.
- The district court denied the city’s motion to dismiss the takings and equitable claims; the city appealed interlocutorily. The Supreme Court remanded to resolve ownership and standing questions and then considered the appeal.
- The Utah Supreme Court treated standing as threshold: developers had statutory standing to challenge an impact fee’s validity but only if brought within one year of payment; they did not file within that period.
- The Court held developers lacked a viable takings claim based on post‑exaction spending decisions and lacked standing to pursue equitable refunds for misspent/unspent fees; it reversed the district court and ordered dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory/constitutional takings claim exists from alleged misspending or non‑spending of impact fees after exaction | Developers: City’s failure to spend/encumber fees within six years or spending on impermissible uses violates takings clause (Koontz/Nollan‑Dolan) | West Jordan: Takings analysis focuses on the government’s demand at time of exaction; later spending does not create a Nollan‑Dolan unconstitutional‑conditions claim; statute’s refund remedy is time‑limited | Held: No takings claim — Nollan/Dolan/Koontz apply to conditions at time of exaction; post‑exaction spending does not revive a takings claim and developers’ statutory challenge was time‑barred |
| Whether violation of the Impact Fees Act is per se a constitutional taking | Developers: Any statutory violation converts to a constitutional taking | City: Statutory noncompliance is not automatically a constitutional violation; constitutional analysis is independent | Held: Rejected per se theory; statutory breach alone is not necessarily a takings violation |
| Whether developers have standing to seek equitable refunds for misspent/unspent fees | Developers: Equitable relief available to recover fees improperly used or retained | City: No statutory private remedy; plaintiffs must satisfy traditional standing and cannot show direct injury or redress to them | Held: No standing in equity — developers failed to show distinct, palpable injury or that refunds would redress the true injured parties (residents/taxpayers) |
| Whether the one‑year statutory challenge window (Utah Code §11‑36a‑702) prevents later takings suits | Developers: Claims not ripe until six‑year spending period passed | City: Constitutional challenge to the demand must be brought within the one‑year window | Held: Statutory one‑year limit governs challenges to the validity of impact fees; lateness bars the developers’ statutory challenge and they did not allege an unconstitutional condition at time of exaction |
Key Cases Cited
- Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (established essential nexus requirement for land‑use exactions)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) (established rough proportionality requirement for exactions)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013) (extended Nollan‑Dolan scrutiny to monetary exactions conditioned on permit approval)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical takings are per se and require compensation)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (clarified regulatory takings analysis)
- Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (1998) (distinguished general financial obligations from land‑use exactions for takings analysis)