Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 NOVEMBER 2014

Unlawful Development Permit Conditions Not Binding On Second Permit Applicant When The Original Permit Expires Without Use – Second District Changes Mind On Changed Facts

Sheppard
Sheppard
Contributor
Sheppard

Sheppard

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more...

View firm profile
Explore more from Sheppard

A major fact correction on rehearing led the Second Appellate District to reverse its earlier ruling in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission.

United StatesReal Estate and Construction

A major fact correction on rehearing led the Second Appellate District to reverse its earlier ruling in Bowman v. California Coastal Commission (2nd Dist., Div. 6, 10/23/14, B243015 (on rehearing).  The court has now held that collateral estoppel does not prevent a landowner from letting a permit expire and then challenging imposition of the same conditions on a later replacement permit.  This conclusion replaces the original holding that reliance on an unchallenged permit estops the property owner from seeking changed conditions when applying for a revised permit.  Nevertheless, in a complete victory for the owner, the court has also found that the original condition should not have been imposed in the first place because it was an illegal taking under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from